***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

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).  

With all due respect, I'm going to go with the journalists over the guy on the Pearl Jam message board pointing to his gut

it makes absolutely not militaristic sense to not have a number 2. especially for such a seasoned general. if anything, they did a great job of hiding #2's identity so they couldn't kill both of them. 

Where are you getting your information from?

Common sense.  Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard.  And they would never travel together.  You even do that in business.  I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team.  It's in our contracts.  This is pretty basic stuff here.  

You should read more and spout off less

Thanks to Mickeyrat.  Here's their new janitor/general.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51008996

Yes, was just reading about Esmail Ghaani .  And he already has a plan:  "“We tell everyone, be patient and see the dead bodies of Americans all over the Middle East.”  Maybe not WWIII, but there very likely well be a shitstorm of unrest and more horrors in the middle east and elsewhere.  Trump kicked the hornets nest.

mickeyrat

time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.

tbergs

mickeyrat said:

time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.

It just shows time and again, that the US is the new kid on the block who thinks they can come in and scare everyone with their flag waving blow hard shit while countries and civilizations that have been around for thousands of years, patiently wait for us to move on to the next pop culture phenomenon.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.

tbergs said:

mickeyrat said:

time and again, the west seems to willfully ignore the lessons the past can teach us. one of which is Sooooo many countries/cultures/tribes have a super long memory and revenge is a dish best served cold.

It just shows time and again, that the US is the new kid on the block who thinks they can come in and scare everyone with their flag waving blow hard shit while countries and civilizations that have been around for thousands of years, patiently wait for us to move on to the next pop culture phenomenon.

You are both correct.  Past fights and wars with other countries don't work on the middle east.  They play by a different set of rules.

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

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, 

Common sense.  Jesus Christ, this one isn't hard.  And they would never travel together.  You even do that in business.  I can't travel with more than one other person from our executive team.  It's in our contracts.  This is pretty basic stuff here.  

You should read more and spout off less

Believe me, I read a ton.  I just don't take what I read at face value.  This morning before work I read all the latest neocon points on National Review.  I also read Dreher and Larison from AmConMag, which tend to be less interventionist.  My responses to you are well informed.  It's interesting that you have not countered my arguments at all.  Perhaps you can explain to me how assassination furthers our 40 year strategic goals in Iran.  I'll wait.  

I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.

pjl44

Jesus Christ my head hurts. Ladies, this is proof that men mansplain to men, too.

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution 

I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.

I disagreed and called bs on the statement that there wasn't a #2 ready.  And low and behold,  the new general is announced today.   So im not sure how you can say that I didn't absorb what you wrote when I countered it directly.  Those arguments are neocon talking points.  And my apologies for extending the conversation into broader point. I guess next time you can just skip reading it if you can't keep up. 

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution 

I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.

I disagreed and called bs on the statement that there wasn't a #2 ready.  And low and behold,  the new general is announced today.   So im not sure how you can say that I didn't absorb what you wrote when I countered it directly.  Those arguments are neocon talking points.  And my apologies for extending the conversation into broader point. I guess next time you can just skip reading it if you can't keep up. 

That's not new news. They announced it within 24 hours. I need to keep up?

https://www.foxnews.com/world/esmail-qaani-quds-force-iran-us-foe

pjl44

His role was filled. My point is Qaani isn't Soleimani. The BBC article mickeyrat linked says as much, too.

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution 

I didn't counter your argument because I agree with you on that. Nowhere in my post did I disagree with you. I was talking about one thing and you prattled on about a dozen other things. You just come on here and pontificate without absorbing what other people say.

I disagreed and called bs on the statement that there wasn't a #2 ready.  And low and behold,  the new general is announced today.   So im not sure how you can say that I didn't absorb what you wrote when I countered it directly.  Those arguments are neocon talking points.  And my apologies for extending the conversation into broader point. I guess next time you can just skip reading it if you can't keep up. 

That's not new news. They announced it within 24 hours. I need to keep up?

https://www.foxnews.com/world/esmail-qaani-quds-force-iran-us-foe

Im saying keep up with broader arguments of the wisdom of the action,  and how it plays into strategic goals.  The argument about no one ready to take the helm is absurd, and I don't need any reading resources to know that's a stupid argument.  IThis new general can be assassinated tomorrow and the threat level isn't zero.  

pjl44

From the BBC article you're referencing but probably also didn't read:

mrussel1

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

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.  

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

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.

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

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. 

pjl44

Back on topic and about that leverage or lack thereof...

pjl44

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?

Kat

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.

pjl44

Kat said:

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. 

https://www.boltonpac.com/2020/01/statement-of-john-r-bolton/

Halifax2TheMax

pjl44 said:

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?

HughFreakingDillon

2018

I say hold on to it until the election. let the american people worry about electing a president that is about to be removed.