ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

What Will Bolton Do?

[ Posted Monday, November 25th, 2019 – 18:00 UTC ]

The biggest remaining question in the impeachment inquiry now is what John Bolton is going to do (or not do, as the case may be). The ball is now squarely in his court, after a federal judge ruled today that Don McGahn can indeed be compelled to testify before a House committee. The judge rightly rejected the "blanket immunity" claim that the White House tried to use to block McGahn's testimony, but of course the case won't be ultimately decided until it gets to the Supreme Court (unless the White House backs down, which seems highly unlikely at this point). Bolton could either use this initial ruling as a reason for deciding to testify, or he could continue to play it coy. This could be a crucial step in the entire impeachment inquiry.

Bolton is a rather odd duck for Democrats to now see as a possible star witness, mostly because most Democrats consider his foreign policy views to be slightly to the right of Attila The Hun. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but never stranger than this neoconservative warrior being seen as the possible lynchpin to impeaching and removing a Republican president from office. But that's indeed where things stand, at the moment.

So far, Democrats have done a good job of laying out their basic case. They have forged link after link showing that the Trump administration did indeed require a quid pro quo for both a White House meeting with the Ukrainian leader as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that was held up until Trump got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Republican defenses of Trump have crumbled, one by one, until they are now left insisting that nobody has testified that they heard Trump give a direct order to do any of this stuff.

This last defense would be utterly destroyed if Bolton testifies that Trump did indeed direct the entire plot. And Bolton would know because Bolton was in the room with Trump for many important moments during it all. He could testify firsthand that: "I heard Donald Trump say..." or: "The president ordered everyone to..." to fill in any possible gaps in the other witnesses' testimony. He would be a valuable witness to hear from, and may wind up providing the ultimate link in the chain that stretched from Kiev to the Oval Office.

Bolton's lawyer has, up until now, said that Bolton will not testify unless a federal judge rules that Congress has the right to enforce a subpoena demanding Bolton's testimony. However, there is no current court case that might directly force Bolton to do so. The House subpoenaed one of Bolton's aides, Charles Kupperman, who went to court because he had gotten conflicting orders from the legislative and executive branches of the government. He wanted a judge to rule on which he should follow. But then in a strange move, the House withdrew its subpoena, because Democrats wanted to focus on the McGahn case, which was much farther along in the process. The withdrawal of the subpoena made Kupperman's case moot, and Bolton never filed a case because he never got a subpoena (the House merely requested his voluntary testimony). So there is no active court case concerning Bolton's testimony.

Which leads to our headline question. What will Bolton do next? He (and his lawyer) have a number of possible routes. They could continue to insist that Bolton won't appear until a federal judge directly rules that Bolton himself must appear. Up until now, that's how the lawyer has been framing his language. Or they could decide to wait until the Supreme Court weighs in on the McGahn case, which hasn't even been appealed yet. That could take weeks, perhaps months to resolve, which might be far too late to have any effect on the impeachment (which is moving much faster than the courts normally do). Or they could decide that one judge's ruling was good enough for them, and Bolton could announce he was now ready to testify as soon as he gets a subpoena from the House committee.

With all the other players in this scandal who have so far refused to testify, it's pretty easy to see that they'd take the first option and fight to the very end any attempt at forcing them to appear. In other words, nobody expects Mick Mulvaney or Mike Pompeo to testify any time soon. But these are the people who still have a vested interest in keeping Donald Trump happy. Bolton does not.

Bolton seems like a man who really does want to have his story heard, which sets him apart from all the other people fighting to stay out of the committee hearing room. Bolton was in Trump's inner White House circle due to his credentials in the conservative community (which he forged during George W. Bush's term), and then Bolton was unceremoniously kicked out of Trump's White House. This reportedly annoyed Bolton no end, which is now the motivation for him to possibly be the key player in bringing Trump down. His lawyer hinted in a letter last week that Bolton knows plenty of things that have not yet been uncovered by the committee, and he'd be happy to tell them all about it once the legal issues surrounding his testimony are resolved. If Bolton were a reluctant witness, there would have been no reason to insert such a teaser. After all, why brag that you know where the bodies are buried if you're not prepared to let them be dug up?

Remember that merely being forced to testify is no guarantee of actual helpful testimony. The judge reiterated this today in his ruling. Executive privilege can indeed still be claimed, but these claims must be done in person while testifying and on a question-by-question basis. The Justice Department has been arguing that they can claim "blanket immunity" which precludes any questions or hearings entirely, which is what the judge rejected. But that doesn't mean that McGahn can't appear, only to endlessly repeat: "On the advice of my attorney, I respectfully decline to answer that question" to any question of importance he is asked.

Nothing would preclude Bolton from doing the same, of course. But at this point it's a pretty safe bet that he won't. If Bolton does appear before the committee, he may sing like a little birdie, in fact. That's what his lawyer is already teasing, at any rate.

If Bolton does tell what he knows voluntarily, his testimony may prove to be key in two big ways. He will strongly forge that final link between all the other players in this scheme and Trump himself. And his conservative credentials mean he will be impossible to paint as some sort of pinko-lefty or "deep state operative." Republicans in Congress know full well this isn't true, which means it'll be almost impossible to even attempt to smear Bolton's political standing (the way they have indeed tried to do with other witnesses). This will give his testimony incredible weight within the Republican Party. And if he's the one to blow the lid off the Trump White House, then his testimony is going to be very hard for Republicans to ignore or discount in any way.

The ball is indeed squarely in John Bolton's court. The ruling just handed down could, if he chose, give Bolton all the judicial cover he needs to agree to testify. If he does testify, he seems more than willing to air all sorts of dirty laundry to the House committee. He may not only prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Trump's involvement in the quid pro quo scheme, he may actually uncover new and completely different illegal schemes for the Democrats to investigate.

This could be a pivotal moment in the entire impeachment inquiry. The judiciary has now ruled for the first time in the fight between the House and the White House. It ruled for Congress. This ruling will likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and it may not be the only case of this type to make it through the court system. If John Bolton decides that one ruling is good enough for him, though, then the rest of the process won't matter, because Bolton will appear at a hearing long before any of the other courts rule. So, what will Bolton do? Will he tell his story in the next few weeks, in a public hearing? Will he drop the biggest bombshells of all in the impeachment inquiry? Will Democrats look back at Bolton the way they now look back at John Dean? At this point, those are the most important unanswered questions in the impeachment effort.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

59 Comments on “What Will Bolton Do?”

  1. [1] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So the never Trumper list expands by two: Bolton, for his own reasons, and the Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who has an ongoing dispute with the President, which resulted in his firing.

    That list includes a number of folks who, for one reason or another, back that guy to the moon and back.

    Or, let's say, conservatively, about 1,000 people. The number isn't important, because it can be added to the number of Kurdish supporters in the US, most republicans. Maybe folks against trade barriers, or for open markets. Maybe folks that see just how much we've done for Russia and don't like it.

    Let's say the number is growing every day, and that it isn't Democrats. All of these folks used to be Republicans. And I can imagine more than a few considering sitting at home next election day.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    From yesterday..

    Let’s start with your comments posted to CW’s FTP from February 23, 2018

    WOW.. I am really REALLY deep in your head.. I am getting that icky STALKER feeling..

    But what's so hilarious is that NONE of what you posted shows in ANY WAY that I wasn't a civilian LEO...

    Even when yer a stalker, yer still a liar and a moron!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    Ruling on McGahn; no absolute immunity and he must testify. Won't change anything, but the SC is likely to get a backlog of appeals of these (imo) baseless immunity claims.

    As usual.. An Odumbo judge who hates Trump rules against him..

    And, as usual, the SCOTUS will set the record straight and rule in favor of President Trump..

    Nothing new here... :D

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    So the never Trumper list expands by two: Bolton, for his own reasons, and the Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who has an ongoing dispute with the President, which resulted in his firing.

    Spenser was fired because he jumped the chain of command..

    It's that simple..

    Or, let's say,

    Let's say

    Yunno.. Yer saying "Let's say" but what yer REALLY saying is "I wish"....

    That's how ya have been since Nov of 2016..

    And NONE of yer wishes have EVER come true... :D

    Funny how that is, eh?? :smirk: :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bolton is a rather odd duck for Democrats to now see as a possible star witness, mostly because most Democrats consider his foreign policy views to be slightly to the right of Attila The Hun.

    Yep, but Dumbocrats suffer from HHPTDS so they would align themselves with Adolf Hitler if they thought it might get them a crack at President Trump...

    That is what hate and bigotry does to normally rational and intelligent people.

    We only need to look as far as the denizens of Weigantia to know this is factually accurate..

    So far, Democrats have done a good job of laying out their basic case. They have forged link after link showing that the Trump administration did indeed require a quid pro quo for both a White House meeting with the Ukrainian leader as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that was held up until Trump got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    CW!!!! Shame on you!!! You haven't been paying attention!!

    The new freshly focus group'ed accusation is Bribery..

    Quid Pro Quo is so 2 weeks ago.. :eyeroll:

    But then in a strange move, the House withdrew its subpoena, because Democrats wanted to focus on the McGahn case, which was much farther along in the process.

    That's not a strange move... Schiff-Head knew the court's would bitch-slap him so he ran away...

    What's so strange about that? It's standard Dumbocrat procedure, straight out of the handbook..

    Bolton seems like a man who really does want to have his story heard, which sets him apart from all the other people fighting to stay out of the committee hearing room.

    Yea?? How do you know this?? What facts do you have that allows you to make this claim???

    Nothing would preclude Bolton from doing the same, of course. But at this point it's a pretty safe bet that he won't. If Bolton does appear before the committee, he may sing like a little birdie, in fact. That's what his lawyer is already teasing, at any rate.

    So, in other words, you are latching on the claims of a LAWYER (of all people) and have no first hand claims from Bolton himself.. In short, you are hearing what you WANT to hear and not what is actually said by Bolton..

    OK, I am glad we settled that..

    This ruling will likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court

    And, to date, every ruling in the SCOTUS on his issue has been in favor of President Trump..

    Will he drop the biggest bombshells of all in the impeachment inquiry?

    It's funny.. Ya'all always say BOMBSHELLS!!!! but what it ALWAYS turns out to be are nothing but snipes.. :D

    Ya'all need to come to grips with reality and the facts..

    This faux impeachment coup is fizzling out.. The American people are turning against it, the facts don't bear anything impeachable out and Democrats are FOCUS GROUP'ing like crazy and can't decide on anything..

    I was hoping to have this faux impeachment coup utterly fail by today, but it looks like it's gonna hang on for another week or so.. A shame...

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now a message from a Weigantian Sponsor. :D

    As ya'all know, I have had a lot of dr appts lately due to heart issues..

    As it turns out apparently, I have some serious heart problems that are going to be (hopefully) addressed by surgery tomorrow morning bright and early..

    Doctors say it's a 60-40 chance of going sideways, but what the hell... Since President Trump has been elected, I have been mostly lucky in beating the odds... :D

    But don't worry. I have it in my will to make good on my Annual Weigantian Fundraiser obligation.. :D heh

    So, if ya'all don't hear from me after today, ya'all will know why..

    "See ya on the other side, Ray"
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    So far, Democrats have done a good job of laying out their basic case.

    Actually, the facts clearly show that Democrats have NOT made ANY kind of case...

    How Democrats can build a better case to impeach President Trump

    House Democrats have done a masterful job of holding hearings with testimony from distinguished diplomatic and national security witnesses on the alleged quid pro quo that President Trump sought from Ukraine. The problem is that the record is incomplete and conflicted on critical points. The question is whether Democrats want a real or a recreational impeachment. A real impeachment case can be made, but to make it, they will have to reschedule, reframe, and repeat their House investigation.

    As compelling and upsetting as much of the testimony has been, the record still lacks direct evidence of a quid pro quo on American military aid to Ukraine. Out of all the House Intelligence Committee witnesses, European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland was the only person to speak directly to President Trump on the issue, testifying that Trump denied any quid pro quo and that his own presumption of a quid pro quo was connected to a White House meeting with the Ukrainian president and not the aid. The transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president does not state a quid pro quo, and the only two other direct conversations on the record have Trump denying a quid pro quo.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/471890-how-democrats-can-build-a-better-case-to-impeach-president-trump

    The only witness that has ANY kind of FIRST PERSON direct contact with President Trump has stated explicitly that there was no quid pro quo intent on the part of President Trump..

    And there wasn't even ANY quid pro quo at all, since the QUID (aid) was delivered without any QUO (investigations)..

    So, you haven't have any quid pro quo without the quid or the quo...

    I am not even going to address the ridiculous claim of "bribery" because the facts CLEARLY show that THAT charge was based solely on what hysterical Trump/America haters WANTED to hear (IE Focus Group) as opposed to what the facts clearly show...

    When all is said and done, there simply is no impeachable offense here..

    NONE...

    ZERO...

    ZILCH...

    NADA...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I think what we're starting to see, you know, is when the impeachment inquiry was first announced and [Democrats] started to do these depositions, a lot of people were asking, 'Can Nancy Pelosi peel off any Republicans?' But I increasingly think the question is becoming does [Nancy Pelosi] lose more Democrats? Because Republicans have really unified behind the president, and although two Democrats voted against the impeachment inquiry rules that they voted on a couple of weeks ago, we are hearing behind-the-scenes there are moderates getting cold feet. And it comes back to these ads and people being afraid for being punished for voting to impeach the president."
    -WaPoop Reporter Rachael Bade

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that this faux impeachment coup is on it's last legs when WAPOOP, of all places, start sounding it's death knell.... :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb112519dAPR20191125044529.jpg

    Perfect..

    Explains EXACTLY where Democrats are in the here and now..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the White House’s top lawyer, a federal judge ruled Monday — a decision that will put pressure on other reluctant Trump administration witnesses to testify about President Donald Trump’s actions.

    In an opinion that could reshape the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that McGahn, who spent 30 hours talking to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, can’t hide behind Trump’s claim that he is “absolutely immune” from speaking to the House Judiciary Committee.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/25/mueller-star-witness-must-testify-to-congress-judge-rules-073622

    Whaditellya....

    A Trump/America hating Odumbo judge..

    Well, that's ANOTHER biased and unfounded ruling that's going to be reversed by the SCOTUS...

    Just like the Mueller Report redaction.. Just like the President Trump tax returns ruling... Just like every immigration ruling.. etc etc etc..

    One could almost believe that Democrats LOVE losing and LOVE to get bitch-slapped down by the SCOTUS...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yoooooo hoooooo... Balthy????

    "What is left to us now is to decide whether this behavior is compatible with the office of the presidency, and whether the constitutional process of impeachment is warranted."
    -Adam Schiff-head

    As I said..

    Dumbocrats haven't even STARTED impeachment..

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?? :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    A bit ago, you asked me if I would accept Congressional Censure Of The President as a viable compromise..

    Yer asking the wrong person..

    You should be asking the Democrat Party base if THEY would accept Censure as a viable compromise.

    I only mention it because it looks like Pelosi is faltering and considering just that "out"..

    So that question might become a very real possibility in the very near future...

    Personally I think that the Democrat Party base will lose their frakin' minds if Pelosi tries to water down this faux impeachment coup to a mere censure..

    I can picture President Trump's reaction..

    "Democrats didn't have the facts on their side so they puked and bailed and offered this lame meaningless partisan step in hopes to satiate the masses.. Once again, I am thoroughly exonerated and vindicated.."
    -President Trump

    :D Yea.. THAT will work.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    If things go south it might not be all that devastating.

    It has been shown that people without working brains can be Trump supporters, maybe that transfers to hearts also. :D

    Seriously, though, best of luck and hope to hear from you again soon.

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I have a pretty bad case of TIFS (Televised Impeachment Fatigue Syndrome). As I see it, Impeachment is the anvil, the upcoming 2020 Election is the hammer. I suppose the anvil could tip over and crush Trump, but the hammer seems much more likely to do him in...and a good number of his "friends" Foxy and otherwise.

    Good fire discipline on the troll everyone...let him play with himself.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It has been shown that people without working brains can be Trump supporters, maybe that transfers to hearts also. :D

    Heh.. What's that old saying??

    "If yer not a Democrat at 25, you have no heart.. If yer not a Republican at 45, you have no brain.."

    :D

    Seriously, though, best of luck and hope to hear from you again soon.

    Thanx.. Ditto.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good fire discipline on the troll everyone...let him play with himself.

    Apparently, that space in yer head you have given me is expanding.. :D

    You remind me of Kevin... He said he always ignores me, but also couldn't help talking about me.. :D

    "Quit trying to {ignore} me and {ignore} me!!!"
    -Morpheus

    :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I suppose the anvil could tip over and crush Trump, but the hammer seems much more likely to do him in...and a good number of his "friends" Foxy and otherwise.

    Yea.. You said the same thing about ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion..

    How did THAT work out for ya?? :D

    Ya gotta admire the utter blind devotion to the insanity..

    Trying the same thing over and over and over hoping for a different result...

    I am sure that THIS time, it will be different.. After all, 47th time is the charm, right?? :D

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "At this point, those are the most important unanswered questions in the impeachment effort."

    Another great article speculating on what might happen on the unanswered questions in the impeachment effort.

    At this point, the most important unanswered question ABOUT these articles is why speculating about what might happen depending on how it plays out gets repeated over and over in article after article while never addressing what caused us to have a president in office that would require or invite impeachment and speculating about changing the way citizens approach the electoral process to prevent electing more presidents and representatives that may require or invite impeachment in the future.

    One could speculate that it is either you are willingly playing along with the distraction or you are just fooled by the distraction.

    Either way you are part of the problem.

    Get Real and become part of the solution.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House to House Dems: No Ukrainians Died Waiting on Aid

    As the White House counsel begins a confidential review of the decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine last summer, administration sources tell RealClearPolitics that one thing is certain: Ukrainian soldiers did not die for want of assistance from the United States.

    Though President Trump placed a hold on a $391 million aid package, which included $250 million worth of military assistance, administration documents reviewed by RCP show that most of the funds were always scheduled to be spent after mid-September.

    That aid was released ahead of that timeline on Sept. 11, making any resulting no-aid casualties impossible, according to multiple sources familiar with the process.

    The established schedule was well-known as House Democrats began questioning witnesses as part of their impeachment proceedings. But that didn’t stop Rep. Eric Swalwell from claiming that the delay caused battlefield casualties as Ukrainian forces fought to curb Russian aggression in their country.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/26/white_house_to_house_dems_no_ukrainians_died_waiting_on_aid.html

    On the other hand, how many thousands of Ukrainians died because Odumbo didn't give Ukraine ANY military aid???

    10 thousand?? 20 thousand?? FIFTY THOUSAND!??

    The FACTS clearly show that President Trump has been a hundred times better for Ukraine than Odumbo was...

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m
    i've heard that pecan pie is excellent for heart surgery recovery. best wishes, and don't forget to drizzle some chocolate on it.

    @don
    pie is the answer to most impeachment questions as well. impeach pie.

    JL

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    i've heard that pecan pie is excellent for heart surgery recovery. best wishes, and don't forget to drizzle some chocolate on it.

    Yummm :D

    My lovely wife and I have been reading up on heart surgery.. Studies show that many who have had this kind of surgery have profound psychological changes coming out the other side..

    Ya'all might find I come out the other side a raging hysterical Democrat who whole-heartedly supports ya'all's bullshit.. :D

    Wouldn't THAT be a hoot, eh?? :D

    pie is the answer to most impeachment questions as well. impeach pie.

    For Republicans, the impeach pie would be chocolate creme pie..

    For Democrats, they are probably looking at a crow pie with heavy on the sour grapes sauce... :D

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sometimes old sayings are bullshit that when they were new were designed to keep people in their assigned places.

    When it comes to the Democrats heart, Republicans brains saying this clearly appears to be the origin and intent of that saying.

    To me it is overruled by the children's story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

    In that story people were told that only smart people could see the emperor's new clothes and they were either afraid to appear stupid by admitting they could not see the clothes or possibly even want so much to believe they were smart that they actually thought they did see the emperor's new clothes that were not actually there.

    Whoever started that saying either never read the story or decided to repeated a tried and true deception.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't it funny how Democrats are rabid adherents to the US Constitution.....

    Democrats, don't hand impeachment to Mitch McConnell
    https://theweek.com/articles/880252/democrats-dont-hand-impeachment-mitch-mcconnell

    .... Right up to the point that it's inconvenient..

    :eyeroll:

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    And so it begins....
    Swing State Dem Flips on Impeachment

    Over the summer, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence fully backed the move to impeach President Trump, but the Detroit-area Democrat said over the weekend that she has since changed her mind.

    “I feel we should begin that process,” Lawrence told CNN on June 12. “If we impeach him, he is still sitting in the White House because the Senate must act.”

    “Our democracy is bigger than Donald Trump, and we need to act,” added the congresswoman, who since 2015 has represented Michigan’s 14th District, which includes eastern Detroit.

    Now, however, Lawrence said she sees things differently.

    “You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president,” Lawrence said Sunday on No BS News Hour with Charlie LeDuff. “Sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.”

    “I’ll be g-damned,” the host said at one point in response to Lawrence’s remarks. “To hear you say, and you are a Democrat, and you are a liberal minded person; I know you don’t like Trump For the betterment of all of us, in an election year, it’s unwise to tear him from the chair. Is that how you think?”
    https://tinyurl.com/vkyaa86

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that Red/Purple State Democrats would happily vote YES to "begin the faux impeachment coup inquiry" but then would balk when it comes time to declare one's self as YES for Impeachment..

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that!??

    Oh wait..

    Amazing how I called that dead on ballz accurate, eh?? And it's only the beginning..

    This faux impeachment coup is going to fail.

    Just like the Russia Collusion delusion that preceded it..

    :D

    Once again

    MICHALE = 20,076,876
    TRUMP/AMERICA HATERS = ZERO

    "Oh what a beautiful morning...
    Oh what a beautiful day...
    I've got a beautiful feeling...
    Everything's going my way..."

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Millions of Latinos are Trump supporters. Here's what they're thinking.

    Despite his harmful rhetoric, President Trump's policies and fierce attitude have attracted a certain subset of those in the Latino community.

    Consider the views of Chris Salcedo, a conservative Mexican-American radio host in Texas who bills himself as a “liberty loving Latino.”

    “I’ve always resented the hell out of liberals, in the press and out of the press, who have said that I, because of my Latino surname, have anything in common with someone who is breaking into my country without our permission,” Salcedo told me. “When the president cracks down on illegal border crossings and human trafficking, I do not believe he’s attacking me — because I also want to stop those same things.”
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/26/latinos-for-trump-supporters-hispanics-mexicans-attacks-immigrants-column/4224954002/

    That's what ya'all don't get about minority voters..

    While they may be turned off by the rhetoric, the thoroughly support President Trump's policies...

    Ya'all think that RHETORIC is all voters consider..

    Black and hispanic Americans don't give a rat's ass what President Trump says..

    Black and hispanic Americans care a GREAT DEAL what President Trump does..

    And, to date, black and hispanic Americans are loving what President Trump does...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    “You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president,” Lawrence said Sunday on No BS News Hour with Charlie LeDuff. “Sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.”

    What's ironic about Lawrence's claim is that she sits in a safe Democrat area of Michigan..

    Her new-found reluctance on this faux impeachment coup would indicate she is hearing from moderate Democrats in her district who don't support this coup...

    Doesn't bode well for the Democrat Party...

    I'm just sayin'....

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    FISA report drop could scramble Trump impeachment effort

    Horowitz's report nearing completion.

    Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz plans to drop his long-awaited report on FBI surveillance during the 2016 campaign just as House Democrats are moving toward likely articles of impeachment.

    For allies of President Trump, the timing could be perfect.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fisa-report-drop-could-scramble-trump-impeachment-effort

    "God loves the infantry"

    :D

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    i wouldn't tempt fate by quoting oklahoma

    "Six years later you find yourself singing Surrey with a fringe on top in front of Ira!"
    ~when harry met sally

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Touche'... :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Twenty-one years ago, as Bill Clinton’s presidential future hung in the balance, we warned against impeachment and supported the idea of censuring him. The circumstances were different, but our argument was much the same.

    Impeachment, we said on Dec. 17, 1998, is “a constitutional sword meant to be unsheathed only in the gravest, most unusual circumstances and to be wielded only to preserve the security and integrity of the republic.” Clinton’s offenses did not meet that standard, and neither do Trump’s. A day later, in advocating censure, we wrote that impeachment is about protecting the nation, while censure is about punishing the officeholder: “Properly crafted, a censure would not be a slap on the wrist, but a historic condemnation.”
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-editorial-trump-impeach-censure-congress-ukraine-20191126-gqq2bszaqzhffkd6ybieuxyw2y-story.html

    Censure does something else important. It ensures that final judgment of Trump’s misdeeds remains where it should be, with the American people on Election Day 2020. That is barely 11 months hence. At that time, voters will have the opportunity to expel him.

    Considering how badly Democrats hyped up President Trump's misdeeds and "crimes"....

    Censure would be a cop-out and would be viewed (rightly so) as complete exoneration and vindication...

    Once again, Democrats plant the seeds of their own humiliation at the hands of President Trump..

  31. [31] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale [6]

    What the hell, I thought it was taken for granted around here by all the Dems that you were a "heartless SOB"??

    How they gonna operate on your heart if you ain't got one??

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the hell, I thought it was taken for granted around here by all the Dems that you were a "heartless SOB"??

    How they gonna operate on your heart if you ain't got one??

    Heh... I'm a medical freak of nature! :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama to 2020 Democrat: Biden "really doesn't have it"

    Former President Obama reportedly told a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate that his former Vice President Joe Biden doesn't have what it takes to win the Oval Office.

    Obama, 58, has remained relatively quiet during the first part of the Democratic primary; however, he has met with many of the candidates privately. In one particular meeting, the former president took a dig at his own vice president, according to Politico.

    "With one candidate, he pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an intimate bond with the electorate, especially in Iowa, that he no longer has. Then he added, 'And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden,'" Ryan Lizza reported.

    The former president's dig stands in stark contrast to the relationship Biden has depicted during his campaign. Biden, who has repeatedly stated that he doesn't want Obama's endorsement because whoever wins the primary "should win it on their own merits,” has frequently referenced his time working within the Obama White House.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-to-2020-democrat-biden-really-doesnt-have-it

    Ooooooooo Ouch... That's GOTTA hurt...

  34. [34] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    I hope your surgery is successful, Michale.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope your surgery is successful, Michale.

    Thank ya ma'am.. I am a cup is half full kinda guy so I believe I'll be back.. :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impeachment Trial Timing Puts Democrats in a Bind

    Such a trial, even with that limited duration for the monumental prospect of ousting a president, would likely begin in January and extend to mid-February, serving as both a blessing and a curse for Senate Democrats in the presidential primary race.

    It would put Trump’s impeachment process squarely in the media spotlight in the run-up to the early voting states but also would ground several key 2020 contenders in Washington even though their presence as jurors will have little to no impact on the outcome. All signs right now point to the GOP-dominant Senate acquitting President Trump.

    Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who faces his own reelection fight this year, is practically licking his chops at the thought of Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, along with independent Bernie Sanders, sidelined from the campaign trail in the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3 and the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11.

    South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg is already leading the pack in Iowa, and he and Joe Biden and are nipping at Warren’s heels in New Hampshire.

    Democrats, Cornyn told reporters late last week, are already “squandering” their opportunity to focus on the issues voters care about most with their march toward impeachment.

    “I like the thought of several of [the Democratic candidates for president] grounding themselves in Washington” early next year, he told reporters last week, with a smile.

    The Senate trial also will inevitably bloody up Biden just as the Democratic nominating process begins. For Republicans, the trial will not be just of President Trump’s actions in holding up U.S. aid for Ukraine, but also focus on Joe and Hunter Biden and what the latter did on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma to deserve his lucrative payouts.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/25/impeachment_trial_timing_puts_democrats_in_a_bind.html

    Once again, it has to be pointed out how Democrats did not think this thru whatsoever...

    Tying up 6 Dem presidential candidates when the Dem Primary is at it's peak?? McConnell could stretch out the timing and make sure every Dem Senator that's a Presidential Candidate would be MIA on Super Duper Tuesday...

    Being able to slap Joe Biden around with impunity when HE is trying to run his campaign??

    There is literally **NO** downside for President Trump or the GOP when (if??) impeachment moves to the Senate...

    Everything goes Trump's and the GOP's way after Democrats have their say...

    Like I said in the latest FTP ...

    Realistically, the outcomes for the Democrats are

    VERY BAD

    MUCH WORSE

    CATASTROPHIC

    If anyone here can see a rational and logical path for this to end any other way for the Democrats???

    "Well, I am all ears.."
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    Pelosi should opt for censure and then take her lumps..

    That is the BEST of this horrible situation that the Democrat Party has maneuvered themselves into..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell wasn’t subtle last week when he suggested Republicans would have every incentive to keep the 2020 Democrats glued to their Senate seats in an impeachment trial.

    The GOP leader appeared purposefully vague when asked how long such a trial would last.

    “A number of Democratic senators are running for president. I’m sure they’re gonna be excited to be here in their chairs, not being able to say anything during the pendency of this trial. So hopefully we’ll work our way through it and finish in not too lengthy a process,” he said.

    Again, I have to ask..

    What spin is possible that can rationally put this in a GOOD light for Democrats???

    Democrats are doomed...

    If only they had listened to the voice of reason, instead of the voice of the Trump/America haters..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    “IT IS HARD TO READ THIS AS ANYTHING BUT A WARNING”: NEW POLLING SUGGESTS DEMOCRATS’ IMPEACHMENT PUSH COULD ALIENATE KEY VOTERS

    Data exclusive to Vanity Fair shows impeachment could be a losing issue for Democrats hoping to recruit Independents in 2020. “Lots of people who don’t like Trump who are still prepared to vote for him,” says one political science expert.
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/new-poll-suggests-democrats-impeachment-push-could-alienate-key-voters

    From VANITY FAIR, of all places!!!

    I mean, com'on people!!

    Do ya'all need a ton of bricks ta fall on ya'all before ya'all realize that MAYBE..... JUST MAYBE... this is not going all that well for Democrats..

    This is going EXACTLY as I predicted it would..

    It wouldn't kill ya'all to admit ya'all were wrong and that I was factually accurate...

    I'm just sayin'... :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Disaster Looms for Democrats as Trump Goes ‘Bigly’ With Blacks

    While the media remains obsessed with an increasingly pointless impeachment by the House and the even more dubious removal of the president by the Senate, political news of genuine electoral importance has slipped in under the rug.

    According to two new polls, Trump has now gained popularity with African Americans—and the numbers are significant, even “bigly.”

    Both polls—Rasmussen, which usually tilts Republican, and Emerson, which is considered even-handed—came out almost exactly the same, putting Trump’s support among blacks at a surprising, almost astonishing, 34 percent and 34.5 percent, respectively. Typically, Republicans poll in the single digits among blacks.

    “Game changer” may be one of the great clichés of our time, but this would actually be one. If even remotely true, Democrats should be having a nervous breakdown. They depend more than ever on African Americans for success in elections. If Trump were to garner even 18 percent of the black vote, he would easily win in 2020. If he had anything close to the 34 percent, it would be a runaway, a disaster for the Democrats.
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/dem-disaster-looms-as-trump-goes-bigly-with-blacks_3155946.html

    That's it.. Democrats might as well concede the 2020 election now..

    There is simply no path to victory for Democrats..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, fun time..

    What's round and very bad tempered??

    A vicious circle!!

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

    :D

  41. [41] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    But what's so hilarious is that NONE of what you posted shows in ANY WAY that I wasn't a civilian LEO...

    No, what is hilarious is that you responded to my stating that you had never worked as a civilian LEO by stating that I was lying and then offer as your proof of my dishonesty your claims that you had graduated from a POST police academy and that you were a “certified” sheriff’s deputy... neither of which actually contradicted my statements NOR do they address the point you were wanting to make!!!

    You did not respond to my claim by saying that you HAD WORKED AS A LEO for “x” amount of years with “y” department...you know, actually responding to the my alleged “lies” about you! No, you chose to respond the way someone trying to lie to everyone reading your words would respond.

    Since most people here are unfamiliar with POST police academies, I will just say that it is and should be viewed as being the equivalent to someone claiming to have received their law degree from the University of Phoenix. Yes, you got a piece of paper for taking their class...It might be enough to make you eligible to apply for a job in law enforcement, but it does NOT mean that any department has hired you.

    I notice you ignored where I demonstrated where you had claimed I was lying about you telling me you had worked as an MP when you were in the service and about supposedly shooting a woman who came at you with a butcher’s knife...but not surprised. It’s unclear if you were ever an MP in the service based on your recent claims that I lied when I said you had told me you had been an MP.

    You claimed to have been in law enforcement for over 25 years... but that doesn’t seem possible with your documented criminal history!

    You are a liar. We all know this. You continue to provide everyone with more and more evidence that clearly shows you to be a liar.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    You did not respond to my claim by saying that you HAD WORKED AS A LEO for “x” amount of years with “y” department...you know, actually responding to the my alleged “lies” about you! No, you chose to respond the way someone trying to lie to everyone reading your words would respond.

    Yer talking in circles...

    You claimed that I said I was never a civilian LEO..

    I told you that you lied.

    You have never provided any facts to prove your claim..

    Talk in circles all you want, dipshit.

    You have no facts and my military and LEO bona fides are well-established.

    These are the facts that you cannot dispute..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    You claimed to have been in law enforcement for over 25 years...

    Once again, a bullshit claim of something I said that I never did..

    Once again, you are a liar..

    Live with that, dipshit..

  44. [44] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I hope that Michael’s surgery is a success. Disney movies have me convinced that your heart can be truly fixed... that the troll infestation can be removed and you’ll be a real boy again! You’ll be in my prayers and I wish you a speedy recovery!

    -Russ

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    You claimed to have been in law enforcement for over 25 years...

    Once again, a bullshit claim of something I said that I never did..

    Once again, you are a liar..

    Live with that, dipshit..

    God, you are easy to manipulate into proving that you are a liar!

    From the comments on CW’s June 8, 2016 article:

    [61] Michale wrote:
    ! You could not ask for a more textbook case of self-defense.

    Geeee... Where have I heard THAT before...

    Oh yea... I used those EXACT words myself within a day or so of the shooting, after talking to some of the responding officers...

    But, I don't have a '-D' after my name, so that means I have no credibility... Despite over 2 and a half decades in the field....

    DESPITE OVER 2 AND A HALF DECADES IN THE FIELD...sure looks like that is what you said to everyone here!

    And I hate even asking this.... but if you don’t survive this, please tell me that your obituary is NOT gonna lie about your law enforcement career out of spite, is it!?!?

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Bolton is praying that his publisher will have his book finished and in stores before he is forced to tell his tale! That is the main reason he won’t testify now — he knows it will hurt his book sales.

    Screw patriotic duty...this is about his big pay day!

  47. [47] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [46] he knows it will hurt his book sales.

    I think that's only true if his testimony were nothingburgers and weasel-ish responses. If he were the Dean-like witness, or a Butterfield-like witness, bringing information that changes the game, his sales would go through the roof.

    Bolton ain't no patriot. Name one neocon that is.

  48. [48] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Vaya con Dios, michale.

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    5

    Yep, but Dumbocrats suffer from HHPTDS so they would align themselves with Adolf Hitler if they thought it might get them a crack at President Trump...

    Hitler is a dead villain, dipshit; you should really find somebody else suitable and living and cast them in your fantasy about fraternizing with Democrats.

    Oh, I know! You could claim that Democrats would align with Vladimir Putin... oh, wait! Nevermind. *laughs*

    As for the rest of your mindless prattling on and on and your "definitely drank the Kool-Aid" sheeple drivel, I would call you ignorant, Bubba Trump, but that wouldn't exactly be fair to stupid people. You really should remove your head from your ass before it gets stuck that way. *laughs* :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Good fire discipline on the troll everyone...let him play with himself. ~ TheStig

    *

    Apparently, that space in yer head you have given me is expanding.. :D

    You remind me of Kevin... He said he always ignores me, but also couldn't help talking about me.. :D Bubba "Mike" Trump

    Mike answers to the name "troll" and proves that Kevin still lives rent free in his tiny head. *laughs*

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    19

    On the other hand, how many thousands of Ukrainians died because Odumbo didn't give Ukraine ANY military aid???

    Lie, lie, lie, and no matter how many times you post a lie, it's still a lie.

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Millions of Latinos are Trump supporters. Here's what they're thinking.

    Only Mike would post some conservative dipshit's opinion here as if it was fact and claim he could read "millions of Latinos" minds.

    The stupid... it burns, and it obviously goes all the way down to the bone.

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    42

    You have no facts and my military and LEO bona fides are well-established.

    Well established? *laughs*

    Lie, lie, lie.

    These are the facts that you cannot dispute..

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    On the other hand, how many thousands of Ukrainians died because Odumbo didn't give Ukraine ANY military aid???

    Lie, lie, lie, and no matter how many times you post a lie, it's still a lie.

    I know, right? Obama refused to provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles for fear of it escalating the intensity of Russian attacks, but he did provide them with a huge amount of military aid. Not selling them one type of missile they were interested in buying is NOT the same thing as denying Ukraine of “ANY military aid???”

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    45

    You claimed to have been in law enforcement for over 25 years...

    Yes, he most certainly did... unless he now wants to claim a different meaning for his words; that is a common theme with Hair Dick Tater and the GOP gullible MAGAts, rubes, and sheeple.

    It happened during a discussion about the Trayvon Martin shooting wherein Mike repeatedly referred to multiple posters (and the group as a whole, of course) using the terms "ignorance," "racists," "bigots," "hypocrites"... you know, same old shit, different day/week/month/year.

    He was responding to you, Russ, while disparaging JL:

    [61] Michale wrote:

    ! You could not ask for a more textbook case of self-defense.

    Geeee... Where have I heard THAT before...

    Oh yea... I used those EXACT words myself within a day or so of the shooting, after talking to some of the responding officers...

    But, I don't have a '-D' after my name, so that means I have no credibility... Despite over 2 and a half decades in the field....

    They only filed charges after the governor caved into public pressure and ordered GZ be indicted.

    Once again.. word for word what I said above...

    Gods, I hate the hypocrisy from people that I USED to respect...

    Michale

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/08/thank-you-bernie/#comment-76836

    Mike fabricates a lot using the terms "been there and done that." Remember that time we were having a discussion about nukes, and Mike called us all stupid and claimed his expertise in nuclear "ordinance" and kept prattling on and on and over and over about his years of expertise in nuclear "ordinance." I never met an expert in military ordnance who repeatedly misspelled something he was claiming his expertise in.

    God, you are easy to manipulate into proving that you are a liar!

    The words "gullible" and "rube" come to mind. *laughs*

    And I hate even asking this.... but if you don’t survive this, please tell me that your obituary is NOT gonna lie about your law enforcement career out of spite, is it!?!?

    Will Bubba Trump lie? Of course, it's what he does here.

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    54

    I know, right? Obama refused to provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles for fear of it escalating the intensity of Russian attacks, but he did provide them with a huge amount of military aid. Not selling them one type of missile they were interested in buying is NOT the same thing as denying Ukraine of “ANY military aid???”

    Exactly! :)

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick [55],

    it seems appropriate to be like liz and write something terse. but i'm not sure what, so suffice to say that i really didn't appreciate being dragged into this particular exchange.

    JL

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    57

    it seems appropriate to be like liz and write something terse.

    Why on Earth would you drag Liz into this? Russ and I weren't discussing Liz nor any other comment that discussed Liz in the past, but there you go... dragging Liz in. *laughs*

    but i'm not sure what, so suffice to say that i really didn't appreciate being dragged into this particular exchange.

    As far as the "particular exchange" you're taking issue with, it was a comment from June 2016 that Russ and I have discussed before and were discussing again, and I was simply explaining the context of that discussion from 3+ years ago that spanned multiple comment boxes, which context happened to include a discussion about you.

    Anyway, back to Liz. Why would you "drag" -- I mean mention -- Liz in this discussion? Because she's a regular poster on this board and, as such, her name is going to come up in discussions based on her past participation... not at all unlike anyone/everyone else who comments here. :)

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Non-serious

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]