Background Interviews With Trump Defense Team (Transcripts)…

There were two background press interviews between the media and President Trump’s legal team that were withheld from public release until today.

You can read INTERVIEW ONE – and – INTERVIEW TWO here.

During one question and answer period on Saturday, following the first round of defense points, the key framework of unconstitutional impeachment was raised:

[…] TRANSCRIPT – Question from Jeff Mason with Reuters: Can you walk us through the discrepancy between your side and the House impeachment managers with regard to the President — you guys alleging that the President was shut out from representation during the hearings? They preemptively said that that was false.

You also said today, I believe, that the reason the White House didn’t take — didn’t allow or go through with the subpoenas is because the subpoenas were invalid. Can you just walk us through the discrepancies between the two sides on that?

SOURCE ON THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM: Sure. On the subpoena question, first: There are one of several different legal reasons that apply to different requests for documents or witnesses. And this will be explained further in our presentation, but I’ll just sort of recap what I was saying today.

One problem was that they began this impeachment inquiry in the HPSCI and the other committees that were meeting in the SCIF without any vote from the House to authorize it. And the essential point is that the Constitution gives the impeachment power to the House as a chamber — the whole House. For any committee to exercise part of that authority to a compulsory process, the committee has to be authorized by the House. That takes a vote of the House. And it could be in a resolution, it could be in a rule. It could be something that’s — but it has to be voted on by the House to actually delegate authority to the committee. There was no such vote here. And there was no jurisdiction in the standing rule to use the impeachment power for those committees.

So those subpoenas were issued without authority and they were invalid. And that’s a pretty standard analysis for how you examine and have the committee (inaudible) issue a subpoena. The courts have said you have to look at the authorizing resolution that gives it its investigatory powers, and that was our point. And this was explained in letters at the time. I put up on the screen an October 18th letter that we explained at the time this reasoning. So that’s on the invalidity of the subpoenas.

In terms of locking the President out of the process: You know, as I went through today, there was sort of an illusory offer to allow the President to have some rights in proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee. But before the deadline had even come for the President to specify how he would like to participate and what rights he would like to exercise, the Judiciary Committee had already decided they weren’t going to have any factual hearings — hear from any fact witnesses. And the Speaker had already announced the outcome of the proceedings by directing the committee to start drafting articles of impeachment.

So it was clear that the process was already a foregone conclusion, and there wasn’t going to be any real process. It was just going for show. And so the President determined that he would not sort of lend an air of legitimacy to that by participating.

And I think that that’s it.

[LINK]

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Background Interviews With Trump Defense Team (Transcripts)…

  1. Merle Marks says:

    I believe they’ve done a stellar job so far…

    Liked by 16 people

  2. Harvey Lipschitz says:

    I have no reason to believe but a tiny number had not made up their minds. It could
    wrap up this week but I predict Dems have noticed their defeat and will drop tricks and surprises to delay the death vote.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Tall Texan says:

      Agreed – and let me add – beware the Mittard!

      Liked by 7 people

    • Darren says:

      The politics of Bolton will be drummed up to see if there is any movement in the likely voters

      Like

    • americancyclop says:

      The delays will not hurt Trump, he is like the Eveready bunny. He never slows down. His rallies will continue to grow. Dems can’t stop him, it was said, on an exit poll, at the Minnesota rally, 25% were registered Dems. How can the Dems corrupt the Electoral College???? How do they corrupt the Congress and Senate? These are determined by individual voters, not the Electoral College, so let’s compromise the voting machines and software. New Bills in 2019, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2652/text and https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1540/text The coming plan for the Dems is to lose the White House but to always control the House and Senate to a 2/3 majority in each, in the future. That ensures a VETO proof control and execution of new laws and treaties. Every President will be a “Lame Duck”! There are about 3200 counties in the US, Trump took 86% and Hillary took 16%. Control the voting apparatus in these counties, you control every election. It’s been in the works since the “hanging chad” occupied the news for months in Florida, during the 2000 election. Heads up! A required redundant tally, individual participant, hard copy record should be mandatory with voter ID.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Deborah Fehr says:

    They were really counting on the Bolton memoirs to shake things up. Those creeps, expect all sorts of tricks over the next few days. I saw Mitt on news today, he should just vote and shut the hell up, his deep state friends are in as much jeopardy of being exposed as him. Hope he doesnt let his hatred of PDT overcome his senses.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Maybe J. Coffer a Black should be called as one of the witnesses?

      Liked by 3 people

      • zekness says:

        si….but that’s best handled with the burisma investigation that never happened, and should not be included in this trial…if they go down this road to calling witnesses, it gives the democrats just the opening they desire to continue this nonsense ad infinitum….they KNOW this will never result in a conviction…there are not federal crimes committed. And there are too many other shenanigans that the senate is not going to tolerate…

        separately, I do believe it is worth pursuing a separate investigation…referral to DOJ to establish a special counsel and start counting heads and who was made very very very wealthy doing business in Ukraine. That would be a criminal investigation.

        This impeachment is a political impeachment. Pursuing any criminal element in this senate trial may have the unintended consequence of poisoning any potential criminal process.. You can be absolutely certain these criminal want nothing more than to have the senate go down that road. It would become a solid defense that any referral later was politically motivated.

        now…how to get a predicate ..a legitimate reason to suspect a crime was committed.

        two words:

        Hunter Biden.

        He isn’t a political candidate…He was involved in some shady business. Ukraine might be useful in re-starting an investigation….any results from that investigation..such as a request for Hunter Biden to travel for a oathed testimony…that might be helpful to establish a US DOJ special counsel.. That creates the space and potential to get many other criminals exposed.

        including coffer black..to name just one of many.

        also…there is good reason to believe certain members of congress (left and right) were involve in some shady dealings in Ukraine. And likewise if they felt a investigation was imminent they would prefer to have that handled in this political trial…and use it for leverage for a vote for acquittal. Remember, some of these clowns are as corrupt mealy mouthed reprobates.

        We should not give them space and leverage and future defense arguments by including elements that rise to criminal misconduct to be handled in some periphery of the senate political trial.

        just my opinion.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Chip Doctor says:

          I agree, but just mentioning his name would probably get Pierre to get in line.

          Liked by 1 person

          • zekness says:

            yes….I understand..but also remember that the GOP defense also looks at the invocation of “biden” made by the HOUSE DIMS during their own opening statements, as a means to go down that road in this trial. It’s tempting to do so, but one also has to understand that while the DIM House members are corrupt, they are very crafty and intelligent (this does not infer legitimacy…but intelligence in the sole sense of being very capable of manipulating a process for a desired result…those lawfare folks are a skillful suite of corruptors)

            the Senate Defenders (President’s Defense team) take a risk of taking this trap and this invites a risk this trial should not include.

            This trial should be as narrowly focused in order to FORCE the allegations to simple terms. This performs extremely important outcomes:

            1. it directly provides the answers to end this trial and acquit the President of any wrongdoing. This is the primary mission. Anything else is a risk.

            2. It informs the viewing public just before a presidential election of the illegitimacy of the DIMS cause.. Exposes their deceit. It slams it shut and forces the DIMS to accept another unforced error they built on pure Bullsh%t.

            3. it solidifies a growing belief even among the most deeply koolaid drinking left voters that the DIM leadership, the press, and the prior mueller investigation and prior FISA court russia is coming charade were all a sham..and there is reasons to believe their is coordination from some very corrupt (and epicly ineffective) persons that are not to be trusted at all.

            4. By refusing the allow Biden into the trial also gives a refreshing review of the legitimacy of how the President’s Attorney’s and thus, this senate trial, is not going to tolerate extraneous allegations (yet to be proven) into the matters before it..which is : did the President break the law? yes, or no. nothing more..nothing less. (no is of course the obvious answer as the DIM House has not even stated a crime has been violated)

            5. less is more. One of the reasons why the LEFT is failing in this latest charade, is because they do not have discipline and efficiency…and worse, they are terminally boring with the repetition…it lacks a certain required human emotional feature. “if you’ve seen adam schiff once, you’ve seen him before” the same can be said for each of the Left DIM’s team and managers.

            the left is failing…again….and it’s failing in the ultimate courtroom….

            we should not even think about giving them a single opening to improve that condition.

            We punish these corruptors by denying them the very thing they cannot create for themselves: respect.

            we can get to Biden later. He will have his time…when it has the moment of maximum impact. Summer – Sept 2020..About the time he gets the primary.

            that’s when it counts to take him down. Will not need wikileaks for him….or a Jim Comey either.

            We will take him down the old fashioned way…but publishing his shady dealing…and referring him to investigation. I believe Rudy will hold these things in check for that very reason. He understand the supreme value of releasing the hounds at the right moment.

            Liked by 2 people

        • Sherri Young says:

          Acquit President Trump on the constitutional process defects in Schiff’s case. Feel free to use the names that were already introduced on the House side as bookmarks for criminal investigations. Try to establish that an accused has the right to confront his accuser in court. No more hiding the “whistleblower”. That is being used as a test of just how far social media can go with censorship. It is the 21th century form of cancellation.

          Liked by 1 person

        • nurseinbox says:

          I have seen nothing of a little note from an interview with Carl Rove a few years ago. He stated that when Clinton’s impeachment made it to the Senate, they called Clinton and offered him a deal – they would let him stay president if he would vote the way they preferred. Clinton agreed and the vote was to leave him. Just consider the implications of that admission.

          Liked by 1 person

    • As a man thinkth says:

      Of course they were counting on Bolton, the Lawfare group had his draft as soon as it was delivered to the White House NSC in late December…The dems rolled their Trojan horse right into the US Senate and opened the gate for the Bolton calamity. They waited for perfect timing to drop the MOAB to distract from the defense presentation and gave Mitt and the other 3 stooges their voice on demanding witnesses. As if Mitch had no idea what was going on…

      Like

      • Cam Heck says:

        Anyone else wonder how it is that Dems are always coming up with offensive strategies that invariably catch Republicans (and all of us) off guard – but which are almost always predicable in hind sight? How are these unforced errors repeatedly possible? Stephanie Grisham said the WH got the Bolton manuscript Dec 30. So no one on the defence team got in front of this, knowing full well the Dems would get a copy and use it?. Got to stop winning from behind and start letting them having it upfront and relentlessly. SMH.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Joshua2415 says:

          Odds are the manuscript does not say what the NYT reported it to say. Just like the transcript of the Zelinsky phone call doesn’t say anything like what Eric Ciarmerella was supposedly told that it said. We all know that most of what the media reports regarding President Donald Trump is a lie. But EVERY TIME they cite only “anonymous sources” you can bet the ranch that it is a lie.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Cam Heck says:

            If the manuscript in fact does not say what the leaker says it does, one would assume the defence team would have said so, and maybe even quoted from it directly, with permission. But they have not done this, so what does that tell us?

            Like

    • Caius Lowell says:

      Counting on Bolton — hope is not a strategy…

      Liked by 1 person

    • mr.piddles says:

      In a last ditch effort to stay out of Federal Prison, Lev Parnas resorts to Jedi Mind Tricks: “This is not the Bombshell you’re looking for… [mystically waves hand]”

      Like

    • Snellvillebob says:

      Of course they did. Why else did the Dims tell Bolton to write the book? I wonder what his signing bonus is? And who actually paid for it? Is the IRS listening? Crickets…

      Like

  4. Dutchman says:

    I note PDJT has denied the alleged allegation of the Bolton memoir, as reported.
    However, he has not made derogatory comments or tweets,,so far about Bolton.
    And, Dersh included in his learned legal argument, and reiterated that
    “EVEN if the allegation were true, it would NOT rise to the level of an impeacable offence.

    I reiterate my theory,, and having slept on it feel a little stronger about it, that its possible PDJT and Bolton just punked the House Dems, and they fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    Talk about Trojan horse. We’ll see what happens.

    I listened today, team Trump is doing a great job, they have the Law on their,side, they have the facts on their side, the skill is all on their side.

    They are making their case both to the Senators AND to the American people.

    When they are done, I doubt even mittens will defect, and I expect one or two may defect from Dems.

    But, we’ll see what happens,..

    Liked by 8 people

    • LP says:

      I’ve said for awhile that I think all this yammering about witnesses, one the R side, is something like the old Brer Rabbit–Please don’t throw me in that briar patch. If they get witnesses like dimwitted Hunter and creepy where-am-I Uncle Joe up against Cippolone or Sekulow, I know who’s going to win. I think it’s for show. Get the Dems to beg, plead and scream for their own undoing. 😀

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sherri Young says:

        Some of these senators have blue and purple constituents back home. When someone goes to court, they should not be judged on their color, last name, or political affiliation. Those constituents need to know that their senators will vote on constitutional grounds. When Susan Collins crossed over on one of the rules votes, that put down a marker for her constituents that she was not voting in robotic lockstep. She already has her Kavanaugh floor speech and vote that surely must not have endeared her to some of the people in Maine.

        Like

      • Dutchman says:

        They don’t really want em, but if possible I would like to see them get them, as you say.

        However, I think team Trump has done a GREAT job. Witnesses won’t hurt their case, but will hurt Dems case, so if they get them, I agree will be the nail in the coffin.

        Dems obviously never learned first rule of holes,…..

        Like

      • Snellvillebob says:

        I would rather get Joe Biden than Hunter. I am afraid that if he gets the nomination, he will pick Hillary as his running mate, then get impeached or just step down. This is Hillary’s only path to the White House is on Biden’s coattails.

        Like

    • Despicable Me says:

      POTUS didn’t openly accuse Bolton and hedged when tweeting, “IF John Bolton said…..”

      Like

      • Dutchman says:

        Yes, I noticed that, and am watching. Without researching and quoting,…back when NYT printed DJT’s tax return, he said something like “IF someone illegally obtained my tax return, THAT w

        Like

      • Dutchman says:

        Yes, I noticed that, and am watching. Without researching and quoting,…back when NYT printed DJT’s tax return, he said something like “IF someone illegally obtained my tax return, THAT would be illegal, and they should be Prosecuted!”

        So, lets see how this plays out, at this point its just a possibility, but an intriguing one.

        Like

    • dbobway says:

      I’ve heard a few quotes from from Bolton, but he should be on ever hour, on every station,
      Repeating his leaked quote. We’ll see if that happens today.
      I stand by my feelings, neither side of the aisle wants witnesses.
      All the Democrats want, is a majority vote of 51, against the President, from the Senate.
      Right now, I don’t see that happening.
      So the ‘Turtle’ is doling out our tax money, on bridges to nowhere, to the squeakiest wheels, of the GOP Senators.
      If witnesses are voted on, the media couldn’t hide all of it. They are sure hiding the Republican defense right now.
      This country doesn’t have the apparatus to report the truth about the act of treason committed to the President ,
      Where ‘all’ the people could see what the traitors, in our own government, and the governments of our alley’s, committed to over throw our government.
      We need 75 million Republican voters in November,
      That is our no. 1 weapon to stop all this.

      Like

      • Dutchman says:

        I think we will get 80 million votes for DJT, at least.
        The media doesn’t have nearly as much control over public perception as the used to have, or think they have.
        And, in the Trump era, the # of lofo voters has gone WAY down.
        I am confident.
        I agree witnesses vote is likely NOT going to be to call any, just don’t see it as harming PDJT, if they did.

        Liked by 2 people

        • dbobway says:

          I like your thinking Dutchman.
          175,000 in Jersey tonight?
          All the Democrat candidates can’t fill up a library.
          Here is a little snippet in history.
          On January 8, 2008 Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary and candidate Barrack Obama gave the, game changing “Yes we can’ speech after her victory.
          The crowd was big and loud. Many say this speech changed the tide, sending Obama to the WH.
          The Dem’s primary had already started,
          That NH crowd was tiny compared to what is going to happen tonight in Jersey.

          Like

  5. GB Bari says:

    The only issue unaddressed so far is the blatantly obvious missing testimony from the exceedingly corrupt Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

    Hoping that will be used as more ammo to acquit w/o witness testimony. However if the witness vote appears to be imminen, the defense team ought to demand the ICIG testimony as the predicate to any live witnesses.

    Liked by 7 people

  6. gadeplorable says:

    While things could change in the next day or two, right now I don’t see any R’s voting for witnesses -not after today. In fact, I wouldn’t be that all surprised if a D or two jumped ranks and voted no witnesses as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. islandpalmtrees says:

    Susan Collins must not have been listening or just didn’t understand it. Charges were made by the House without Judicial authority. Any movement to call witnesses will cause a permanent in-balance in the three branches of government, in terms of power. With Congress being more powerful than the other two. On the face of it, they can not call witnesses.

    “Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) likewise said in a statement: “The reports about Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.”

    Like

  8. hokkoda says:

    Pretty hard for Democrats to demand new witnesses when they’re withholding Atkinson’s testimony. If the Prosecution did that in a real trial, it would be a mistrial.

    The Defense just needs to continue to go in there and bludgeon the Democrats. Bludgeon their coverup of Biden. Bludgeon their secret “witness” whose testimony we are not allowed to see. Bludgeon Schiff as a serial liar. Bludgeon the House’s attempt to do in the Senate what they failed to do in the House.

    And most importantly, stop trying to persuade reporters. When they keep repeating the same, stupid, talking points, just remind them they’re crappy listeners who are hitched to the wrong wagon and move on. Talk past them. Talk to the public.

    Liked by 9 people

    • GB Bari says:

      I most emphatically agree!!

      Liked by 1 person

    • I interpret your comment to mean the Republicans should start cultivating rectal hair.

      Like

    • donna kovacevic says:

      When reporters keep asking the same govna over and over and they already have been told, I would move along and say “asked and answered for the 10th time.” They really are a bunch of dumb asses these so-called reporters. God Bless PDJT.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Despicable Me says:

        DK – I agree that once a press question has been answered, any further repetitions of the questions by the same or other members of the press should be referred to the previous answer. However I don’t think the repetitious questioning by the press that we see is necessarily the result of stupidity on the part of the specific reporter (though it can certainly be the case because many of them don’t appear to be brightest bulbs). I think in many instances the press are simply either trying get a different response so they can broadcast ad nauseam about inconsistency or disagreement in the ranks; simply trying to keep the question/issue at the forefront to extend its usefulness in the news cycle; and/or similar to what the Democrats did last week…if it is repeated often enough perhaps enough unthinking or otherwise busy but disinterested people to make a difference in public opinion will believe it to be true.

        Like

  9. Hans says:

    IMHO.. the presentation to night leave little room for marginal Democratic and no room for Republican Senators to vote for witnesses .. AD clearly took PDT out of the picture..this is about the constitution and your vote could alter our country forever…foreign policy always has political implications and that is not a reason for impeachment…
    My guess is that all of presidents law team will discuss today’s presentation and finish tomorrow.
    There might be a motion to dismiss with prejudice even before the 16 hours of questioning. Questions will greatly muddle such a beautiful defense.. for Republicans it is best to end it now.. for democrats they will try to throw muck and hope it continues.

    This reminds me the loss in a judicial event is not fixed until the end of the process ..right now the democrats IMHO have lost this event …

    Like

    • hokkoda says:

      I think I saw an interview over the weekend, and the GOP Senator basically said if they vote this week, it’ll be to acquit not dismiss. (assuming the witness vote fails). McConnell should be able to structure the vote on witnesses in a way to make sure it fails…ie if the Democrats want Bolton, the GOP gets Biden. I just don’t see the Democrats putting Biden in a position where he needs to take the 5th, and which further highlights his corruption.

      Just like with the Kavanaugh hearings the “Bolton b.s.” is intended to put the GOP on its heels. The problem is that the leak was unsurprising, uninteresting, and the. NYT report is based on a rumor of what someone else says.

      Which is the Democrats’ problem with ALL their witnesses…it’s all hearsay which they recanted on cross examination.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Joshua2415 says:

        McConnell should “structure the vote” by telling every senator that Lindsay Graham’s committee will have subpoena power to summon whatever witnesses they want in the pending Ukraine Corruption investigation. If they want to hear from the Bidens, or Bolton, or Mulvaney, or Schiff, then they will get their chance. But it has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with their votes on impeachment.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Rick says:

          Because this is a very important Constitutional issue, Mitch should have a vote to aquit or dismiss on the Constitutional issue that the articles raised do not meet the standard of Treason, bribery, or other crimes of that nature

          Secondly, Mitch should hold a vote on dismissing the case because the House did not allow due process, because they did not authorize the bulk of their impeachment investigation with a full House vote.

          Pending the failure of those votes( I pity the fools who vote against those 2 items) if the Senators are hell bound and determined to trample over the Constitution and have their witnesses, then I would take your suggestion and amend it so that the subpoena power given to Lindsey Grahm begins with witnesses Adam Schiff, Eric Charamella and the Atkinson testimony under lock and key in the House SCIF, followed by everything relevant including the Biden’s.

          Liked by 1 person

  10. Juvenal says:

    Yet, those RINO Senate numb-nuts are squeaking to allow witnesses that the Democrats in the House deliberately avoided calling, because the Democrats wanted to paint those numb-nuts into a corner. Of course, they predictably caved.

    Like

  11. RedNeckJohnGalt says:

    The following fantasy keeps rattling around in my head re: Bolton.
    I was hesitant to share this theory but Dutchman already let the cat out of the bag, or at least tore a small hole in the bag.

    Imagine this glorious state of affairs.
    As Bolton prepares to publish his book he and his editors contact the White House and advise they will be provide a courtesy copy of the book for review to the White House (December 30 this actually happened) and a separate copy to the NSC to its pre-publication review. The White House says, “Thanks John, POTUS and Barr would like to chat with you before you send either transcript over.” Johns says, “No problem, I’ll swing by.” During that conversation POTUS and Barr remind Bolton of the use of the FISA application to catch the rat James Wolfe and his kitten Ali Watkins. POTUS and Barr suggest that John and his editor do the USA a solid by placing a small morsel of rat cheese in the manuscript he shares with the Vindman twin at NCS. That morsel would read “POTUS told me the aid to Ukraine would NOT be released sans an agreement by Ukraine to investigate the Bidens” or words to that effect. But the REAL transcript would read “POTUS told me the aid to Ukraine WOULD be released regardless of whether Ukraine agreed to investigate the Bidens.” The Vindman twin could never resist seizing the morsel of cheese and sharing it with the NYT, who in turn has shared it with Pencil Neck Shiff-for-Brains, the Nadless Waddler and the rest of the Dumb Donks. POTUS and his lawyers scream, “Please, please please, whatever you do don’t throw me in that briar patch with John Bolton!” And the Trump hating Rhinos join forces with the Dumb Donks to vote for witnesses. The two witnesses are Bolton and Hunter Biden. Hunter takes the 5th but Bolton shares the story of that small irresistible morsel of cheese he left in the manuscript to help identify leakers on the NSC. This occurs on LIVE television during NAdless NAdler’s direct examination of John Bolton. And the fat Vindman RAT and his smarmy handlers are frog marched out of the White House in cuffs.
    The foregoing Wylie Coyote moment is the way I’d like to see the Bolton kerfuffle play out.

    Liked by 9 people

    • delighteddeplorable says:

      John, that’s a very appealing scenario and it surely works for me. Something about the Bolton!! Bolton!!! Bolton!!!! development doesn’t smell right so there is most likely much more to that story. We’ll see what happens. 😉

      Like

  12. James Groome says:

    There is no way that such a weak minded moron would figure out Bolton was setting him up… lol

    Like

  13. gda53 says:

    The precedent set by the House, namely submitting fake and unconstitutional impeachments to the Senate, needs to be nipped in the bud and sent to purgatory.

    I understand that Dersh was pretty good – sadly, Fox would not show him.

    Like

  14. Conservative_302 says:

    How lucky were we to hear these great men speak? Very. They make me want to go back to college just to sit in a chair to hear a great lecture. Philbin and Dershowicz, especially Dershowicz were my favorites. I am glad they schooled us on what impeachment is. I’ll never forgive the democrats for putting their greed for power above our country. Never!

    Liked by 1 person

    • sDee says:

      “I’ll never forgive the democrats for putting their greed for power above our country.”

      Nor I, the Republicans with the same priority. The Uniparty(R) controlled the House and the Senate for Trump’s first years and sat on their thumbs. Then Ryan and a large block of incumbent Republicans abdicated, giving the House back the the Uniparty(D) so impeachment could proceed.

      The battle of (R) vs (D) is Uniparty theater. The real battle plays out in Trump vs the Globalists, Trump vs the GOPe, Trump vs State Media, and, freemen vs natural slaves.

      I try to maintain this perspective because those who brought America to the brink remain, waiting out Donald J Trump. We, the People, have decades of hard work ahead to root out these politicians and cut off their money supplies. The jackals wait in the wings,b with greedy anticipation, for us to fall back on our partisan trust of them.

      Trump is winning and freemen rally. The battle has begun.

      Like

  15. i'm just sayin'.. says:

    Everybody’s talking about the 4 squishy Rep. Senators and their potential vote for witnesses, but who on the Dem side are in conflicted circumstances, contested states etc.? I also wonder if Lt. Col. Sanders, Elizabeth “rabbit’ Warren and Amy Klawbutcher are dreading the thought of witnesses and this travesty of justice going on potentially for weeks thereby sidelining their campaigns. Meanwhile several hundred of a thousand cuts applied to Joe Biden yesterday (who continues to add self inflicted cuts to himself each day).
    The Dems have a hot mess on their hands. They have a psycho in shifty leading them over the cliff, Nancy wearing this like a millstone around her next and a candidate pool in total disarray.
    The State of the Union is going to be amazing.. After his speech the President should turn and give Nancy a pen…..

    Liked by 1 person

    • J says:

      Here in Michigan, Gary Peters is fighting for his political life against John James. He is most likely going to lose but I have made it clear to him through numerous emails and calls, that his defeat will be certain if he votes for witnesses or to convict. My dad and both brothers have also sent him the same type messages.

      Vulnerable isnt a strong enough word for the position Peters finds himself in. James had a close race with Stabenow in 2018. She is as close to political royalty in Michigan as you get without being named Carl Levin. She has been involved in Michigan politics since the 70s when she was the SoS. Meanwhile, Peters barely beat Cox in 2014.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. ncbirdnwrd says:

    I think, like SD and all Treepers, that this procedural end-around is foundational to the entire defense case. The fact that these “journalists” are just now asking for clarification underscores how weak they are …not willing or incapable of doing actual investigation.

    As part of this obviously intentional and dishonest procedural Lawfare scheme is the fact that without the authorization vote of the entire body, they essentially disenfranchised the representation of voters in 47 – 48 states since the majority leadership on the House committees (and Pelosi) only represent CA, NY, and one other state I believe.

    I wish this point would be emphasized as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. mark says:

    When is the Ukraine Prosecutor General gonna bring charges against Hinter Biden? Right now would be a great time to do so and ask for extradition from the United States to Ukraine. After all both countries have vowed to fight corruption.

    Like

    • Lefty says:

      Next to never. From what I’ve heard, the new Ukrainian President/gov’t hasn’t done any of the investigations or what Trump had been asking for….. that none of these investigations were ever started…. That the Bidens were never investigated, the former corruption was investigated….

      Remember, while you had Trump asking these guys for help in starting investigations, you also had guys like Vindman and Taylor telling the Ukrainians not to get involved and to stay out of US politics.

      I don’t think the Ukrainians really new what to do…. They were being told two different things depending on who was doing the talking that day…. but I don’t think we can expect any help from Ukraine on these issues, sadly.

      Like

  18. flatlandgoober says:

    We either have due process in this country, or we don’t. Dems better think hard about the whole concept of numerical superiority and mob rule. Because they will lose spectacularly if due process gives way to those alternatives.

    Like

  19. GTOGUY says:

    Trump’s attorneys and the Republican Congressmen have been explaining these things to the press ever since the “hearings” began. They just don’t listen and make up their own facts.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. TwoLaine says:

    On the UnConstitutional impeachment answer:

    Quick, concise and to the point.

    However, what the DIMs said in the Q & A yesterday, repeatedly, is that they changed the House Rules, and that allowed for the backdoor inquiry. They never produced them that I am aware of.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s