President Donald J. Trump

[Stupid Robbings]

"And you're impeached forever," Pelosi replied with a big grin, prompting applause from the audience. "No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to take satisfaction in declaring that President Trump has been "impeached forever."

But the Democratic lawmaker "doesn't understand what impeachment is," contends Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Dershowitz explained to Fox News host Sean Hannity that an impeachment is like a grand jury presentation.

And "just as being found innocent by a jury removes an indictment â€" a Senate acquittal makes an impeachment 'disappear,'" Dershowitz said.

"What she has said is, even if the president is acquitted, the impeachment stands â€" no," he said. "That's like saying that, if a person is indicted and the jury acquits 12-0 in five minutes, he’s still indicted.

"No â€" the impeachment disappears. The impeachment is only a grand jury presentment."

Fox News reported Pelosi spoke "gleefully" about impeachment on Bill Maher's show.

Maher said, "Just for the record, being impeached is a bad thing, right?"

"And you're impeached forever," Pelosi replied with a big grin, prompting applause from the audience. "No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased.

"If I knew that the president was listening, I would want him to know that he is impeached forever," Pelosi said, "and he is impeached forever because he used the office of president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit and doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election."

With 67 votes required to convict and Republicans holding a 53-seat majority, it's widely expected that the Senate will acquit the president.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pointed out to Pelosi the fact that acquittal would mean Trump is "acquitted forever."

In a weekend interview, the senator said: "I think dismissing this case is a much less attractive option than rendering final judgment and acquitting the president. And the reason is twofold: number one, if you do a dismissal, a dismissal doesn’t reach the merits. An acquittal, a verdict of not guilty, that verdict stands for all time.

"Nancy Pelosi is going out on TV crowing that the president has been impeached forever," he said.

"Well, when we get to final judgment, the president will have been acquitted forever of these bogus impeachment charges. That’s a much better outcome for the president and for the country."


https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/dershowitz-bad-news-pelosis-impeached-forever-claim/

[Stupid Robbings]

U.S. states sue to block White House from allowing 3-D printed guns
Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - Twenty U.S. states sued the Trump administration on Thursday to block what they called its latest effort to allow blueprints for making guns from 3-D printers to be released on the internet, threatening a proliferation of “ghost guns” that spread violence.

Led by Washington state and controlled primarily by Democrats, the states, along with the District of Columbia, said they sued in federal court in Seattle, after the government published final agency rules earlier in the day allowing the necessary files to be posted.

According to the states, the new rules transfer oversight of 3-D printed guns to the Commerce Department from the State Department, effectively ending Congressional oversight of the blueprints and leaving behind a loophole-filled regulatory scheme allowing their distribution “with ease.”

The blueprints can be used to create ghost guns, which can be difficult to detect even with metal detectors, and difficult to trace because they lack serial numbers.

“Ghost guns endanger every single one of us,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “We’re filing this lawsuit to stop the Trump Administration from further facilitating the spread of gun violence at our schools, our offices, and our places of worship.”

The State Department, the Commerce Department and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit followed U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik’s decision on Nov. 12 striking down an administration effort to let the Texas nonprofit Defense Distributed publish the blueprints, as part of an earlier legal settlement.

Lasnik, who sits in Seattle, cited the State Department’s prior view that making the blueprints available could threaten foreign policy and national security by enabling terrorists and other criminals to obtain firearms.

Gun rights advocates have said fears about posting blueprints were overblown.

The lawsuit concerning Defense Distributed was filed in July 2018.

President Donald Trump, a Republican, tweeted the next day that he was looking into the public sale of 3-D guns and had spoken to the National Rifle Association. He also said the guns did not “seem to make much sense!”

The other plaintiffs in Thursday’s lawsuit are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-3d-guns/u-s-states-sue-to-block-white-house-from-allowing-3-d-printed-guns-idUSKBN1ZM387?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated

[Asuka Langley]

U.S. states sue to block White House from allowing 3-D printed guns
Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - Twenty U.S. states sued the Trump administration on Thursday to block what they called its latest effort to allow blueprints for making guns from 3-D printers to be released on the internet, threatening a proliferation of “ghost guns” that spread violence.

Led by Washington state and controlled primarily by Democrats, the states, along with the District of Columbia, said they sued in federal court in Seattle, after the government published final agency rules earlier in the day allowing the necessary files to be posted.

According to the states, the new rules transfer oversight of 3-D printed guns to the Commerce Department from the State Department, effectively ending Congressional oversight of the blueprints and leaving behind a loophole-filled regulatory scheme allowing their distribution “with ease.”

The blueprints can be used to create ghost guns, which can be difficult to detect even with metal detectors, and difficult to trace because they lack serial numbers.

“Ghost guns endanger every single one of us,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “We’re filing this lawsuit to stop the Trump Administration from further facilitating the spread of gun violence at our schools, our offices, and our places of worship.”

The State Department, the Commerce Department and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit followed U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik’s decision on Nov. 12 striking down an administration effort to let the Texas nonprofit Defense Distributed publish the blueprints, as part of an earlier legal settlement.

Lasnik, who sits in Seattle, cited the State Department’s prior view that making the blueprints available could threaten foreign policy and national security by enabling terrorists and other criminals to obtain firearms.

Gun rights advocates have said fears about posting blueprints were overblown.

The lawsuit concerning Defense Distributed was filed in July 2018.

President Donald Trump, a Republican, tweeted the next day that he was looking into the public sale of 3-D guns and had spoken to the National Rifle Association. He also said the guns did not “seem to make much sense!”

The other plaintiffs in Thursday’s lawsuit are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-3d-guns/u-s-states-sue-to-block-white-house-from-allowing-3-d-printed-guns-idUSKBN1ZM387?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated

LMFAO! good luck with that building your own gun is legal and even if it were illegal there is nothing they can do to stop it. Eat Shit Libtards!

[starrmtn001]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3CDJABpbxQ

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4NU5y3QFMQ

[starrmtn001]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds3Kye2QHTU

[Stupid Robbings]

Trump's reason for firing Bolton at heart of impeachment
Democrats, former security adviser both fueled by policy clash
Art Moore   By Art Moore
Published January 27, 2020 at 9:21pm

House Republicans argued during the impeachment investigation that the testimony against President Trump of Democratic-called witnesses amounted to a clash over foreign policy rather than any substantive claims of wrongdoing.

That already has become one of the White House's arguments in the Senate trial as it fends off the Democrats' effort to call former National Security Adviser John Bolton as a witness. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz argued in the Senate trial Monday night that "quid pro quos" are common in foreign policy. He concluded that even if true, the purported Bolton "bombshell" Sunday constitutes a dispute over foreign policy rather than an impeachable offense.

The push for witnesses was bolstered Sunday by a New York Times report citing an unpublished Bolton manuscript saying that Trump told him he wanted to condition security aid to Ukraine on investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The report has not been verified, and Trump and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney dispute the claim.

Regardless, it was clear that Trump fired Bolton after repeated policy feuds.

"His services are no longer needed at the White House," the president tweeted Sept. 10. "I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration."

In fact, Bolton's hiring in 2018 was a surprise as he had been associated with the "neo-conservatives" of the George W. Bush administration who orchestrated the 2003 Iraq war and the "nation-building" effort that Trump has called "a big mistake."

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who has touted Trump's stated policy of avoiding "endless war," once described Bolton in an op-ed as "hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the US has made in the last 15 years."

Shortly before he was appointed by Trump, Bolton wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal making the case for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.

After his appointment, however, he revised his view, saying, "You have to know in advance the president's views are not always yours."

In January 2019, Bolton outlined conditions for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria that appeared to contradict Trump's announcement of victory over ISIS and a hasty withdrawal from Syria. Bolton said the withdrawal from Syria would not be immediate but contingent upon the achievement of certain objectives, including assured protection for the Kurds and total defeat of ISIS.

In early 2019, Bush accused Bolton of trying to drag the U.S. into a war with Venezuela.

'Drug deal'

Bolton, according to the House testimony of former National Security Council Russia expert Fiona Hill, said her boss Bolton instructed her to tell lawyers she was not part of the "drug deal" EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were "cooking up" to pressure Ukraine.

The whistleblower complaint that triggered the impeachment investigation alleged Trump used the threat of withholding lethal aid to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival.

The White House argues the delayed aid was delivered before the deadline and there was no investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has said he he didn't feel any pressure, and the State Department itself was concerned that Hunter Biden's profiting from a corrupt Ukraine natural gas company while his father was in charge of Ukraine policy was an apparent conflict of interest.

Significantly, Dershowitz on Monday night, as a member of Trump's team, argued that "quid pro quo" in itself is not an abuse of power.

It's rather a regular method of conducting foreign policy, he said, acknowledging that he may disagree with particular quid pro quos.

"Even if a president were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power," he said.

Dershowitz then directly addressed the Bolton leak.

"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense," he said.

"That is clear from the history, that is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit."

A policy difference, he emphasized, is not criteria for impeachment.

"That's a criteria for deciding who you're going to vote for," Dershowitz told the Senate.

"Don't allow your subjective judgments to determine what is and what is not an impeachable offense."

Former Bolton chief of staff: Withdraw the book

A Bolton ally, Fred Fleitz, who served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council, is advising Bolton to withdraw his upcoming tell-all book on his time as Trump's national security adviser.

In an op-ed for Fox News, Fleitz emphasized the "importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers."

Fleitz, now president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, noted he's known Bolton for 30 years and served as his chief of staff twice.

Describing him as an "exceptional national security expert and a man of great integrity," he expressed sorrow that "the courageous and visionary national security adviser left the White House after the relationship broke down."

He said Bolton "played an important role in some of President Trump's most successful foreign policy decisions, including withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the 2018 Counterterrorism Strategy."

But he argued a president "must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them."

"A book by a former national security adviser ahead of a president’s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters," he said.

Fleitz said he hasn't seen the manuscript, and he takes Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times.

"But I believe they are still responsible for this leak since Bolton’s explosive book was sent to the leak-prone National Security Council for a security review in December 2019 so the book could be published in the spring of 2020," he said.

"It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process. Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain."

Fleitz concluded that if a manuscript of this sensitivity were to be published, it should happen after the election.

"I don't understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country," he said.

"There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election."

Trump: I never told him that

President Trump on Monday denied Bolton's claim that the president told him he wanted to condition aid to Ukraine on an investigation of the Bidens.

"I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens," the president said via Twitter. "In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.

"With that being said, the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems."

In addition, Trump said, he met with Zelensky at the United Nations, although the Democrats denied that fact.

Trump further argued he "released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations -- and far ahead of schedule."

"I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration," he said.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/trumps-reason-firing-bolton-heart-impeachment/

[starrmtn001]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqCx8JboYiY

[starrmtn001]

     


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_okuYEAaDM

[starrmtn001]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFR1S3wzPTM

[starrmtn001]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms0H4HfSbcI

[starrmtn001]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kqmojRRqB0

[albrecht]

I think what Trump should do. Maybe not now but towards end is just say, public annoucement, speech, tweet something like- after some talking but maybe even not- "you have privacy in your thoughts. You have privacy in your vote, for now." "Once in ballot box, vote for me and etc...


No matter what Hollywood, society, Democrat media, even your friends, family, say- are you better off now? Do you want open-borders- with the violent cartels, Chinese epidemics, sex trafficking, and drugs? Higher taxes or jobs and propersity? Are the citis Democrats rule better? Vote your conscience and for your family." I know some might say "too close" to "silent majority" but.


This said who still have suspicions of him, as detailed here at dl/dr

[starramus]

https://youtu.be/YNJTB7kv_rk

Feel the Bern arseholes! You should thank the Dems fellow plutocrats!

[starramus]

https://youtu.be/2N6cmL7Nt38

[starramus]

https://youtu.be/mRjfvJWtc_4

Can we laugh this mofo out of office???

[Gd5150]

https://youtu.be/mRjfvJWtc_4

Can we laugh this mofo out of office???

Poor starAnus. Imagine spending every second of the last 3 years being mislead by fake investigations and fake impeachment’s with zero evidence. Imagine having so much obsessive hate you can’t step back and realize your own ignorance. And now finally the next election arrives and the communist run Democrat media/party who’s dumper you’ve been tonguing for 3 years, can’t put forward a single respectable candidate. Imagine living in a world where the only political leadership you can find comes from bozos on hate night tv. That’s gotta be tough.

Nell is here for you.


https://youtu.be/VpYeeYyszLU

[Kidnostad3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kqmojRRqB0

Pam Bondi was an excellent Florida Attorney General.  Her being a babe doesn’t hurt either.  (Yeah I knowâ€"I’m a pig.)

[Stupid Robbings]

https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/threatening-letter-wh-sent-bolton-actually-offer-help-get-published/

https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/trump-slams-bolton-book-listened-world-war-six-now/

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222496715422433281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1222496715422433281&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournal.com%2Ftrump-slams-bolton-book-listened-world-war-six-now%2F


After more than 90 questions and 8 hours of debate on Wednesday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated to Republican senators he believes he now has the votes to defeat any Democratic motion that the Senate consider new witnesses when the Senate decides that question on Friday, according to two GOP sources. That would allow him to skip to the final stages of the trial, the sources said.

Multiple Republicans tell ABC News they hope to move quickly to a vote to acquit the president as early as Saturday, ahead of his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/witnesses-trump-impeachment-trial-end-quickly-gop-sources/story?id=68639038&cid=social_twitter_abcn

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXRo9MJp_JU

Internet Presence.

[starramus]

 [attachment=1,msg1374614]



U.S. House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump
The House of Representatives votes Dec. 18 to adopt the articles of impeachment, accusing Donald Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. (U.S. House of Representatives / Wikimedia Commons)

The Senate impeachment trial playing out in Washington, D.C., is a history-making event, not just because it is only the third time that the Senate has ever been asked to formally consider removing a president, but also because it showcases, in stunning terms, the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party. It would be laughable, if it weren’t so tragic, to watch defenders of President Donald Trump tying themselves into knots in attempting to prove his innocence. They are forced to resort to constant contradictions of their own past statementsâ€"and of one anotherâ€"at every turn, because there is no other way to defend Trump’s actions.

Chief among the embarrassing discrepancies on display is how Trump’s backers approached the 1999 impeachment of President Bill Clinton compared with their handling of Trump’s trial today. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who may be the single most powerful enabler of Trump’s impunity with his assurances of being in lockstep with the White House, said this about the president during a closed-door testimony at Clinton’s Senate impeachment trial:

    Time after time, he had the opportunity to choose the noble and honorable path. Time after time, he chose the path of lies and lawlessnessâ€"for the simple reason that he did not want to endanger his hold on public office. … The president would seek to win at any cost. If it meant lying to the American people. If it meant lying to his Cabinet. If it meant lying to a federal grand jury. If it meant tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.

More than 20 years later McConnellâ€"now holding far more political powerâ€"has predetermined the outcome of the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate, making clear that he would violate his oath of “impartial justice.” Trump stands accused of something far more serious than Clinton was: breaking a clear law rather than lying about an extramarital affair. Trump’s constant stream of lies doesn’t appear to matter to McConnell who, once upon a time, claimed to care about the “noble and honorable path.” (Trump has also lied about an extramarital affair outside of the articles of impeachment, but again, this does not seem to matter to McConnell.)

Another self-righteous Republican senator whose impeachment hypocrisy has been on full display is Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. During last week’s opening arguments, Democrats played a video of Graham in 1999 defining the Constitutional term “high crimes and misdemeanors,” as the basis for impeachment. “What’s a high crime?” asked Graham during Clinton’s impeachment. “It doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.”

Cut to today, when Graham appears to have forgotten his own definition of impeachment offenses, saying instead in a CNN interview in October that he would support impeachment only if it met a much higher standard. “Show me something that is a crime,” he said. “You could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo outside the phone call [between Trump and Ukraine’s president]. That would be very disturbing.”

Much to Graham’s dismay, the “quid pro quo” aspect of Trump’s wrongdoing became readily apparent by November. So he contradicted himself yet again, saying in December that he wasn’t as open-minded on impeachment, and in fact, “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly.” Graham then echoed McConnell, saying, “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Similar hypocrisy has emerged from Trump’s impeachment defense lawyers. During the Clinton impeachment, Alan Dershowitz said, “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.” Now Dershowitz has changed his tune, arguing that Trump should not be removed from office because no crime has been committed.

Except, of course, the Government Accountability Office clearly stated that the White House broke the law in withholding aid from Ukraine against Congress’ wishes. Dershowitz embarrassed himself even further by disavowing his own Clinton-era arguments, saying that in 1998, he “had not done the extensive research on that issue because it was irrelevant to the Clinton case, and I was not fully aware of the compelling counterarguments.”

Trump’s defense lawyers have also been contradicting one another. Attorney Jay Sekulow argued on Saturday that there were no direct witnesses to Trump’s conduct on Ukraine, and therefore the president was innocent. Two days later, after former national security adviser John Bolton’s book was leaked, proving that Bolton was a direct witness, Dershowitz moved the goalpost, claiming that even if Bolton’s story was true, Trump’s conduct did not rise to the level of a crime.

As part of their defense, the president’s lawyers have also been shining a light on Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the targets of the investigation that Democrats have proven Trump was seeking from Ukraine in exchange for military aid. But for months, Trump’s defenders have been denying that Trump sought investigations into the Bidens (except when they’ve been busy saying he was actually doing soâ€"as an avid anti-corruption crusader). Either Trump did not seek political leverage over Bidenâ€"which his lawyers sayâ€"or he did notâ€"which his lawyers also say.

Republicans have repeatedly invoked the idea that they will not vote to remove Trump because the impeachment process is blatantly partisan, and they claim Democrats are targeting the president only because he is from their rival party. But when presented with witnesses who are predominantly Republican testifying (or in Bolton’s case, offering to testify) to Trump’s wrongdoing, Trump’s defenders again contradict their original claim, saying the witnesses are simply a “tool for the left.”

How to keep track of their constantly crisscrossing threads of logic? Republicans told us more than 20 years ago that Clinton deserved impeachment because a president didn’t have to commit a crime in order to be impeached. Today they have no such compunction to hold a president to such high standards.

They say there are no witnessesâ€"even as they stonewall witnessesâ€"and that if there were credible evidence, they might remove Trump. When witnesses and credible evidence emerge, they retort, even so, there has been no crimeâ€"and even if there has been a crime, there is no obligation to remove Trump. When crimes are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they argue that Trump’s targets deserved scrutiny, and therefore the crime was justified.

It is enough to confuse us all. Which is precisely the point. Trump’s fervent defenders are assuming that by sheer force of will and sanctimonious protests against a legitimate constitutional process, they will wear down the American people, who may only hear each argument in isolation. Taken as a whole, the Republican defense of Trump is so illogical, it is insulting to the public.

While the GOP may indeed preserve Trump’s tenure through their death grip on a slim Senate majority, history books will not be kind to the deceit they have displayed and the fools they have made of themselves.

[albrecht]

The usual Democrat Trump Derangement Syndrome or just the usual wild Florida crime? An attempted gate crash and shooting at Mar-A-Lago.

https://wsvn.com/news/local/2-in-custody-after-police-involved-shooting-at-mar-a-lago/
   
I was interested to see that Bolton was i town yesterday, maybe still here, to give a speech to a "private event" hosted by some capital investment firm. So despite the Democrat media, like CNN and MSNBC, making it seem like he was waiting in the wings of the Senate to be presented as the "bombshell witness" he was out of town making some more $.

And since I doubt a hedge fund wouldn't plan an event, speaker, catering, etci n advance it the whole Bolton thing was just kabuki theater. Though, I must admit, I do find it interesting how the Democrats and Leftists now like Bolton- of all people- they now support Bolton!?

[Dr. MD MD]

Though, I must admit, I do find it interesting how the Democrats and Leftists now like Bolton- of all people- they now support Bolton!?

They, like tonight’s Gabcast cohost, don’t even seem to see their own hypocrisy in this. They’re like retarded children with ADD.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS9CrUvsz7k

[ItsOver]

"And you're impeached forever," Pelosi replied with a big grin, prompting applause from the audience. "No matter what the Senate does, that can never be erased.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to take satisfaction in declaring that President Trump has been "impeached forever."

But the Democratic lawmaker "doesn't understand what impeachment is," contends Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Dershowitz explained to Fox News host Sean Hannity that an impeachment is like a grand jury presentation.

And "just as being found innocent by a jury removes an indictment â€" a Senate acquittal makes an impeachment 'disappear,'" Dershowitz said.

"What she has said is, even if the president is acquitted, the impeachment stands â€" no," he said. "That's like saying that, if a person is indicted and the jury acquits 12-0 in five minutes, he’s still indicted.

"No â€" the impeachment disappears. The impeachment is only a grand jury presentment."...

It'll be fun to watch the demented Nancy, more constipated than usual, setting at President Trump's State of The Union Address, after her impeachment debacle.  Maybe she'll entertain us all with a hand puppet show.

[starramus]

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/gop-accused-of-greatest-cover-up-since-watergate/

[attachment=1,msg1374745]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr)

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Friday accused the Republican Party of orchestrating the “greatest cover-up since Watergate” as the Senate prepared to debate and vote on whether to allow witnesses to testify in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

The Senate is widely expected as early as Friday evening to oppose permitting witnesses, given swing vote Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) announcement late Thursday that he will vote no. Alexander’s decision sparked widespread anger and the trending Twitter hashtag #LamarAlexanderIsACoward.

Schumer said during a press conference Friday that if the Senate votes against allowing witnesses, “the president’s acquittal will be meaningless.”

[starramus]

It'll be fun to watch the demented Nancy, more constipated than usual, setting at President Trump's State of The Union Address, after her impeachment debacle.  Maybe she'll entertain us all with a hand puppet show.

That's been updated to the State of the Division Address!

[Gd5150]

...I must admit, I do find it interesting how the Democrats and Leftists now like Bolton- of all people- they now support Bolton!?

Nothing like watching the communist run Democrat party lemmings heads explode as they try to rationalize their ignorance.


https://youtu.be/DH8WhNvry8Q

[Kidnostad3]

It'll be fun to watch the demented Nancy, more constipated than usual, setting at President Trump's State of The Union Address, after her impeachment debacle.  Maybe she'll entertain us all with a hand puppet show.

I will listen to the Address but I won't watch it because the sight of that senile old crone sucking her teeth and mugging expressions of disapproval behind the President's back really pisses me off.  As of now Pelosi is running neck and neck with Hilliary and Schiff in my Detested Politician Index, all three of whom have overtaken Pol Pot and are nipping at the heels of Joseph Stalin.

[ItsOver]

Speaking of Nutty Nancy, here's a good shot of the 'ol bat being "escorted" by her handlers to her next botox and booze break.



She looks like she's ready to join the Ruth "Buzzie" Ginsburg walking dead parade.