Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
Hmmm, @pj44, that is good advice to absorb what other people write before responding. Perhaps you should take your own advice since I said the same thing before I knew the BBC article existed.
Given the Times' story, Pelosi is looking better and better. Clearly the aid was not being held for any national security reasons as the the national security adviser was advising him, nay, pleading with him to provide the aid.
I think McConnell will cave sooner than later...
....and now Johnny wants to testify.
As I've said, Advantage: Pelosi. She has played this beautifully.
I don't trust him i can see him testifying and clearing the Baffoon no way he throws him under the bus ..
the fact that bolton claims he attempted to resign and trump said no then turned around and fired him is really all you need to know.
I hope you guys are right for some reason I just don’t trust his motives , why now he refused to for the house he is promoting his book ..
Also, will he be making a show of support now that we've taken action against Iran? Lord knows he's been for that for years.
The timing is odd. That much I will grant. Then again, maybe he feels we need the steady leadership of one, Michael Pence, to guide us through World War Three. He has seen first hand how unfit for the job Trump is. Who knows?
What's w this WW3 talk? If the nuclear deal was working w Iran then they don't have any nuclear weapons. Even if they did they aren't dumb enough to use them. As much as they hate Israel, they would have done something by now.
Can I remind you of the timeline? -criticize the Iran Nuclear Deal endlessly, claiming its weaknesses represent an existential threat to the USA -withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal with an aim to replace it with a new one. Count on the honour system in the meantime -observe as Iran acquired proxy power across the Middle East and continue to strong-arm unsuccessfully -assassinate the #1 military leader in Iran (one year after withdrawing, with still no renewed Nuclear Deal in sight) -Iran announces it will not adhere to enrichment limits set in the now-obsolete deal
It shouldn't be hard to understand why some are fearful of retribution. Violating international law and blowing up cultural sites (as Trump has suggested he would, but the Pentagon just had to state wouldn't happen) is also a pretty bad look for a supposedly responsible global superpower, and allies will likely take notice, and the rifts between the US and enemies has probably already socially grown, as trust diminishes. Just the act of announcing this pursuit was brazen and apathetic (as well as possibly illegal, as it sounds like there was no authorization granted by Congress, nor time-sensitivity provided - necessary to waive that requirement).
One last thing, four days ago I would've said a certain politician wouldn't be dumb enough to blow up a high-ranking Iranian official when there was no legitimate, time-sensitive reason to do so. Trying to predict what desperate, proud and/or moronic leaders might do is proving to be a fruitless venture.
Counterpoint based on what I've been reading: Iran's strength seems to be on the wane and most of that was wrapped up in Soleimani's efforts. He had a knack for coordinating with all these disparate pieces; there's no natural replacement, as he was a singular force.
Not to say that Trump made a good decision or that we're not in a precarious moment. It's just not a foregone conclusion that it's going to kick off a full scale war. We shall see.
No way, that's bullshit (I'm not calling you out). While I understand that the general was a force for 30 years, but there's no chance that he did not have a #2 that is ready to step up. It would be strategic malpractice not to have such a person in line. This is why the tactic by the US was so foolish. If there was an "imminent" threat to US safety, as the admin said, then the risk does not move to 0% without the general being alive. Makes no sense in any environment..gov't, military, business, etc. The more I think about this move, and the more that the counter moves surprise the administration (see Iraq vote), the more I'm convinced this is just another off the cuff decision by the president, without proper planning or situational awareness for the possible reactions.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
Hmmm, @pj44, that is good advice to absorb what other people write before responding. Perhaps you should take your own advice since I said the same thing before I knew the BBC article existed.
Touche on that point. I read past it because you're continuing to argue with me over points I'm not trying to make. I knew there was already a guy in place...it was announced days ago. You obviously didn't.
You can take the last word. Feel free to pick 8 more things to shout at the wall about.
I've been trying to read as many people who report on the region as I can and it's kind of a consensus that he does not have a #2 ready to step up. I posted a few things I found interesting in the Iran thread. Where are you getting your information from?
My information is from critical thinking, calling bullshit on the justifications being floated. While I said that it's unlikely they have a person as experienced, charismatic, and with the depth of contacts that the general had in the region, there's no chance there is NO ONE to assume his role. That just doesn't pass basic common sense. If there was truly an imminent attack planned (which I don't believe), then there's no way the plan falls apart because the general is dead. The Iranian military isn't just going to tear down the tents and stop being the Iranian military. Persia got through Xerxes dying, they can get through this one (ironically, Xerxes was also assassinated).
Hmmm, @pj44, that is good advice to absorb what other people write before responding. Perhaps you should take your own advice since I said the same thing before I knew the BBC article existed.
Touche on that point. I read past it because you're continuing to argue with me over points I'm not trying to make. I knew there was already a guy in place...it was announced days ago. You obviously didn't.
You can take the last word. Feel free to pick 8 more things to shout at the wall about.
Yeah, cuz that's what I'm doing. Good thing you agree with all the things I'm shouting about.
What's the move? Does the House bring in Bolton and hope he has enough to draft another article to vote on? Cross your fingers and hope the Senate calls witnesses?
Call me cynical, it would be ok as I'm usually not but I'm wondering if Bolton's revelation has everything to do with book sales and nothing to do with actually testifying. The soul-eater would definitely claim executive privilege and the courts would likely agree. So Bolton gets the publicity without actually having to testify and the "revelations" would be in his book, increasing sales because people want to know.
Call me cynical, it would be ok as I'm usually not but I'm wondering if Bolton's revelation has everything to do with book sales and nothing to do with actually testifying. The soul-eater would definitely claim executive privilege and the courts would likely agree. So Bolton gets the publicity without actually having to testify and the "revelations" would be in his book, increasing sales because people want to know.
He's now saying he would defy Trump's request and appear. He went along with it initially when the House called him. Why the change of heart? You can read his statement and "reasoning" at the link. I put reasoning in quotes because I also think he's playing games. Could be a few different reasons, but either way it's kinda typical of this whole ordeal. I hope he has the opportunity to testify, regardless.
Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...
Force the vote and put them on record for having rules that don’t allow witnesses to testify at trial. Then use that vote against them in the fall. Witnesses should exonerate Team Trump Treason’s “perfect” call and no quid pro quo, right?
Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...
Force the vote and put them on record for having rules that don’t allow witnesses to testify at trial. Then use that vote against them in the fall. Witnesses should exonerate Team Trump Treason’s “perfect” call and no quid pro quo, right?
Yeah, that's kinda where I'm at. At this point, the 2 things I can best hope for are:
- Every Senator is put on record and has to answer for their vote - Justin Amash is named an impeachment manager and continues to raise his profile
It would be nice if some curveball leads to a fair trial, but I'm not holding my breath
Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...
Force the vote and put them on record for having rules that don’t allow witnesses to testify at trial. Then use that vote against them in the fall. Witnesses should exonerate Team Trump Treason’s “perfect” call and no quid pro quo, right?
The Speaker gave everyone enough time to think about what they're doing and do the right thing. They should live with this forever in history. My next hope is that the Senate will be flipped in November. Surely there are enough voters with integrity who want to rid the government of corruption?
Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...
Force the vote and put them on record for having rules that don’t allow witnesses to testify at trial. Then use that vote against them in the fall. Witnesses should exonerate Team Trump Treason’s “perfect” call and no quid pro quo, right?
Yeah, that's kinda where I'm at. At this point, the 2 things I can best hope for are:
- Every Senator is put on record and has to answer for their vote - Justin Amash is named an impeachment manager and continues to raise his profile
It would be nice if some curveball leads to a fair trial, but I'm not holding my breath
How good will it look for senate repubs, particularly those up for re-election, to have voted to acquit while denying witnesses and introduction of documents after additional damning evidence is revealed? Hang ‘em high and let ‘em sway, here’s a little more rope Moscow Mitchy Baby.
Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...
Force the vote and put them on record for having rules that don’t allow witnesses to testify at trial. Then use that vote against them in the fall. Witnesses should exonerate Team Trump Treason’s “perfect” call and no quid pro quo, right?
The Speaker gave everyone enough time to think about what they're doing and do the right thing. They should live with this forever in history. My next hope is that the Senate will be flipped in November. Surely there are enough voters with integrity who want to rid the government of corruption?
Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...
Force the vote and put them on record for having rules that don’t allow witnesses to testify at trial. Then use that vote against them in the fall. Witnesses should exonerate Team Trump Treason’s “perfect” call and no quid pro quo, right?
The Speaker gave everyone enough time to think about what they're doing and do the right thing. They should live with this forever in history. My next hope is that the Senate will be flipped in November. Surely there are enough voters with integrity who want to rid the government of corruption?
people have by and large shown they don't care about corruption, as long as it benefits them.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...
Force the vote and put them on record for having rules that don’t allow witnesses to testify at trial. Then use that vote against them in the fall. Witnesses should exonerate Team Trump Treason’s “perfect” call and no quid pro quo, right?
Yeah, that's kinda where I'm at. At this point, the 2 things I can best hope for are:
- Every Senator is put on record and has to answer for their vote - Justin Amash is named an impeachment manager and continues to raise his profile
It would be nice if some curveball leads to a fair trial, but I'm not holding my breath
How good will it look for senate repubs, particularly those up for re-election, to have voted to acquit while denying witnesses and introduction of documents after additional damning evidence is revealed? Hang ‘em high and let ‘em sway, here’s a little more rope Moscow Mitchy Baby.
It's an interesting question and I'm not enough of a political junkie to guess where it will stand as an issue in each race. Word of warning, though, that it cuts both ways. Doug Jones may be facing an uphill battle as it is.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
I still don’t see the big difference in agreeing on witnesses today or after the trial starts...either way, waiting has only increased the odds of them being called at all.
I agree. And if for some reason witnesses aren't called, I truly think the GOP will pay for it in the election.
Comments
You can take the last word. Feel free to pick 8 more things to shout at the wall about.
https://www.boltonpac.com/2020/01/statement-of-john-r-bolton/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-EV 8/14/93
- Every Senator is put on record and has to answer for their vote
- Justin Amash is named an impeachment manager and continues to raise his profile
It would be nice if some curveball leads to a fair trial, but I'm not holding my breath
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/trump-impeachment-documents-foia/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-EV 8/14/93
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There will be witnesses.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/senate-democrats-break-pelosi-over-impeachment-096224
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com