Romney said in an interview Monday that he would look at the resolution (condemning the House impeachment process) but noted that may no longer be necessary.
 |
| Near unanimous GOP support for his amendment demanded Pelosi and Schiff fold |
Any hope that Democrats might pick Senate Republican support in their quest for impeachment was absolutely crushed when Lindsey Graham was able to pick up every Republican Senator but three as a co-sponsor of his bill condemning the House procedure.
Disheartened and demoralized Democrats were forced to abandoned their failed strategy of holding double secret hearings and selectively leaking information. Later this week they will likely vote on a new impeachment strategy more in line with what adult Congresspeople might actually do.
Being political children, Pelosi and Schiff would prefer to continue as they have. But they were quite obviously outmaneuvered and outsmarted by Lindsey Graham who forced their hand. Pelosi and Schiff vow to continue their charade in a more public setting, in spite of this recent political and strategic set back.
Ultimately, Democrats understand that an impeachment in the House and a Senate acquittal will provide the President with a much needed boost and likely galvanize all of Trump's 2016 support as well as additional support of those who may have otherwise voted Democrat, had Democrats not continued to behave as spoiled children who didn't get their way.
While Pelosi has always recognized the folly of impeachment as a political loser, she was forced into this by the insurgent anger, immaturity, and repeated temper tantrums by Congressional members like Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar... who were bound and determined to do this at any cost to their Party and their country. Pelosi simply no longer has control of her caucus.
30 comments:
Democrats will hold a full-scale vote on televised impeachment hearings like Watergate this week - and call Donald Trump's bluff on not co-operating with inquiry.
Trump simply no longer has control of his impeachment.
Trump Attorneys Assert Immunity From Broad Sweep of Law.
The lawless President.
A nation in chaos.
CNSNews.com) - The amount of money the federal government collected in individual income taxes and the total amount of money the federal government spent both set records in fiscal 2019, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released Friday afternoon.
However, even while collecting a record amount in individual income taxes, the federal government still ran a deficit of $984,388,000,000 during the fiscal year.
In fiscal 2019, which began on Oct. 1, 2018 and ended on Sept. 30, 2019, the federal government collected $1,717,857,000,000 in individual income taxes, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.
That was up $5,509,560,000 from the previous record of $1,712,347,440,000 (in constant September 2019 dollars) that the Treasury collected in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018. (Historical dollar values were converted into constant September 2019 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)
In fiscal 2019, the federal government spent a record total of $4,446,584,000,000.
That was up $261,665,170,000 from the previous record total of $4,184,918,830,000 (in constant September 2019 dollars) that the federal government had spent in fiscal 2009.
Remember how Paul Ryan went apeshit over the 2012 deficit????? Amazing only crickets from the conservative party as trump runs the economy in the ditch with spending and his tax breaks...Wonder what happened????
ALREADY digressing from the impeachment "inquiry" and this supposed final "nail" in Trumps coffin.
Even dems don't truly velieve that.
Looks like Trump delivers coffins a whole lot better than the dems.
@Doc_0
There hasn't been anything revealed by this "impeachment inquiry" than a strenuous difference of opinion between Trump and some foreign policy and intel people. They're entitled to offer their opinions, not impose them on us. Only one person in this dustup has to face the voters.
Known across the Levant as the Father of ISIS, Obama had no time for Baghdadi while the dangerous Carter Page and Papadopoulos remained free. With all the golf and parties, he had to prioritize. Kayla Mueller was unavailable for comment.
Lt. Col. Vindman & his family fled the Soviet Union when he was 3. He has served 20 yrs in the Army and has top security clearances to hold his current position.
The smear campaign by GOP officials and Fox News is disgusting. He's willing to testify to what he knows, so they focus SOLELY on his place of birth as the reason to call him a "double agent," or say he has "double loyalties". They accuse him of "espionage". They say he is "simpatico" with Ukraine.
Also, several of them style Ukraine as "The Ukraine," which is the old Soviet-era name for what is now an independent country.
Take this a bit further, they are smearing all immigrants as disloyal to America. Sessions, while AG, said he wanted to reduce the number of "foreign-born Americans."
Tired of this 💩.
The answer is Trumpism stage four brain cancer.
Pentagon officials could not confirm President Trump’s claims that ISIS leader al-Baghdadi was “crying and screaming” moments before he died.
Even gems don't truly velieve that.
Velieve what you dumb fuck???? That trump is perfect?????? BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!...Going to be an ugly day as a never trumpet wounded veteran defends the country as he was sworn to do.....unlike the coward or trump the fraud!!!!! WHO NEVER SERVED ANYTHING BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!!
Trump explained Sunday that one of the reasons he decided to keep a contingent of about 200 U.S. troops in Syria was to prevent the oil fields in the eastern portion of the country from being retaken by the Islamic State, which had once used them as a source of income. The president made the about-face after enduring withering criticism from within his own party about pulling U.S. troops from Syria’s border with Turkey.
“We're protecting the oil, we're securing the oil,” Trump said during a news conference about the death of Islamic State commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during a U.S. military operation in Syria.
But Trump's rationale did not stop there. The oil, he added, “can help us because we should be able to take some, also.”
There are a number of legal and strategic challenges for the United States, or any U.S. firm, to get that oil, according to a several experts. Trump's suggestion that the oil can be taken by the United States is the latest in a long list of legally dubious proclamations the president has made while in office.
To start, the United States has no legal claim to the oil in the first place. Pillaging the natural resources of another nation is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, according to Ryan Goodman, a professor at the New York University School of Law who once served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Defense Department.
“The war crime of pillage is almost as old as the laws of war,” Goodman said. “Most infamously, the Nuremberg tribunal after World War II saw Germans convicted of the war crime of seizing oil in Eastern Europe.”
Further complicating matters is the fact that the United States claims it is not in an armed conflict with the Syrian government. “So Syrian property is not enemy property that might be taken, even for military purposes, as spoils of war,” said Sarah H. Cleveland, a professor of human and constitutional rights at Columbia Law School.
Trump's comments about Syria's oil are similar to those he made during the 2016 presidential campaign urging the United States to “take the oil” in Iraq as one of its “spoils of war.”
“I always used to say... if they're going into Iraq, keep the oil. They never did. They never did,” Trump said Sunday, harking back to his comments as a candidate.
The bone spur draft dodger son of a bitch is the Coldheartedtruth hero Donald Trump!
Roger Amick said...
Tired of this 💩.
Then stop throwing 💩 against the wall to see if it hurts Trump.
And call Eric Ciamarella to the stand.
and fact witness Adam Schiff if he doesn't recuse himself.
btw lo iq that was just a typo, something that is indistinguishable in your remarks from your "content", though that is above your iq grade to try and understand.
And it is a BEAUTIFUL DAY
Republican senators are lost and adrift as the impeachment inquiry enters its second month, navigating the grave threat to President Trump largely in the dark, frustrated by the absence of a credible case to defend his conduct and anxious about the historic reckoning that likely awaits them.
Recent days have delivered the most damaging testimony yet about Trump and his advisers commandeering Ukraine policy for the president’s personal political goals, which his allies on Capitol Hill sought to undermine by storming the deposition room and condemning the inquiry as secretive and corrupt.
Those theatrics belie the deepening unease many Republicans now say they feel — particularly those in the Senate who are dreading having to weigh their conscience against their political calculations in deciding whether to convict or acquit Trump should the Democratic-controlled House impeach the president.
In hushed conversations over the past week, GOP senators lamented that the fast-expanding probe is fraying their party, which remains completely in Trump’s grip. They voiced exasperation at the expectation that they defend the president against the troublesome picture that has been painted, with neither convincing arguments from the White House nor confidence that something worse won’t soon be discovered.
“It feels like a horror movie,” said one veteran Republican senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe the consensus.
The Halloween President
The Republican Party’s strategy is being directed almost entirely by the frenzied impulses of Trump, who has exhibited fits of rage over the Democrats’ drive to remove him from office for abuse of power.
@SaraCarterDC
Opening Statement (IN FULL):
Alexander Vindman:
"I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine."
I can see why Schiff didn't want to wait and have him testify in public. I'm sure there won't be any orchestrated leaks (sarc off) that wouldn't occur if he spoke in public also...
btw lo iq that was just a typo, something that is indistinguishable
Just pointing out that you are a dumb fuck....it worked.....>BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! Going to be a great day for truth in AMERICA as trump will not have a good day!!!!!
lo iq I deal with you because I like laughing at how stupid you are.
and you think you are WINNING
lowest iq and "anonymous". Oops almost forgot, also lo income !
ROFLMFAO !!!
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-alexander-vindmans-full-opening-statement-on-trump-and-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3ziYvy26frHdqcTMYL4oTFy5mxCz98tTdomhoONq72I4Vv3H2DrjB5ckY
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Educate your inbox
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Email Address
Email Address
What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.
CHINA: Power and Prosperity
A look at today's China and its relationship with the world
PBS NewsHour
Live
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, arrives to testify as part of the U.S. House of Representatives impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Trump led by the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight and Reform Committees on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 29, 2019. Photo by Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters
By — Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press
By — Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press
By — Colleen Long, Associated Press
Read Alexander Vindman’s full opening statement on Trump and Ukraine
Politics Updated on Oct 29, 2019 9:59 AM EDT — Published on Oct 28, 2019 10:48 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Army officer at the National Security Council who twice raised concerns over the Trump administration’s push to have Ukraine investigate Democrats and Joe Biden, arrived in military uniform on Capitol Hill to testify Tuesday in the impeachment inquiry.
pitiful, fucking pitiful
@steph93065
Why do we need witness testimony to tell us about peoples' feelings about a transcript we all read?
Are we providing psychological services out of the SCIF?
These bureaucrats should promptly leave the admin with which they don't agree.
Deal with your feelings on your own time.
@steph93065
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
.
Why are we wasting so much time and effort on the feelings bureaucrats instead of passing #USMCA?
#DoNothingDemocrats
but I'd still like to know if he really is still getting paid by Ukrainian interests (under oath)
Anonymous Steph said...
@steph93065
Steph is bigger dumb fuck than the coward.....imagine how low that bar is!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAA!!!
Message to Paula.....WWW. EAT SHIT AND DIE!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAA!!!
What lo iq "anonymous" thinks are constructive comments rather than lo iq idiotic babbling:
Steph is bigger dumb fuck than the coward.....imagine how low that bar is!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAA!!!
Message to Paula.....WWW. EAT SHIT AND DIE!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAA!!!
ROFLMFAO !!!
Fox News said that you are full of shit again and again and Scott A**hole.
Republicans recently stormed a hearing in the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry targeting President Donald Trump to protest the fact that witnesses are being questioned in private.
The next day, Fox News political commentator and legal analyst Andrew Napolitano sought to correct them.
Before even being asked a question, Napolitano began his Oct. 24 appearance on "Fox & Friends" with a statement about the hearings being led by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of one of three House committees holding the hearings.
"I read the House rules," the former New Jersey judge said. "And as frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors — the hearings over which Congressman Schiff is presiding — they are consistent with the rules."
He’s right.
Impeachment 101
Democrats launched the impeachment inquiry following a whistleblower’s report suggesting that Trump withheld U.S. military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country into investigating his political rival, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
A president can be impeached if his or her acts are inconsistent with their presidential duties, whether or not it violates criminal law. It is the job of the House to decide whether there’s enough evidence to show that Trump committed an impeachable offense. First, articles of impeachment would have to pass the full U.S. House of Representatives with a simple majority. Those articles would then be sent to the Senate for a trial. A two-thirds Senate vote is required to convict — that is, remove — the president.
Impeachment is part of the U.S. Constitution. But the rules and procedures for an impeachment are not written in the Constitution, or in a statute; they depend largely on historical precedent.
Napolitano’s position
After making his statement on "Fox & Friends," Napolitano went on to explain that the impeachment inquiry rules were adopted in 2015 by House Republicans and allow for initial interviews of witnesses to be done in secret, much like a criminal case is presented to a grand jury. Any formal impeachment hearing, he added, would have to be done in public, as would a Senate trial.
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Army officer at the National Security Council who twice raised concerns over the Trump administration’s push to have Ukraine investigate Democrats and Joe Biden, arrived in military uniform on Capitol Hill to testify Tuesday in the impeachment inquiry.
Alexander Vindman, an lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq and, later, as a diplomat, is prepared to tell House investigators that he listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with new Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and reported his concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel, according to prepared testimony.
His arrival in military blue, with medals, created a striking image as he entered the Capitol and made his way to the secure briefing room behind closed doors.
“I was concerned by the call,” Vindman will say, according to the testimony obtained Monday night by The Associated Press. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”
Read the full statement here.
Vindman is the first official who listened in on that call to testify as the impeachment inquiry reaches deeper into the Trump administration and Democrats prepare for the next, public phase of the probe. He’s also the first current White House official to appear before the impeachment panels.
The inquiry is looking into Trump’s call, in which he asked Zelenskiy for a “favor” — to investigate Democrats — that Democrats say was a quid pro quo that could be an impeachable offense.
Vindman, a 20-year military officer and decorated veteran, testify that he first reported his concerns after an earlier meeting July 10 in which U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stressed the importance of having Ukraine investigate the 2016 election as well as Burisma, a company linked to the family of Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.
Vindman says he told Sondland that “his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.”
That account differs from Sondland’s, a wealthy businessman who donated $1 million to Trump inauguration and testified before the impeachment investigators that no one from the NSC “ever expressed any concerns.” He also testified that he did not realize any connection between Biden and Burisma.
For the call between Trump and Zelenskiy, Vindman said he listened in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and Vice President Mike Pence’s office and was concerned. He said he again reported his concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.
He wrote, “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.”
It's far to difficult for you to understand.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-alexander-vindmans-full-opening-statement-on-trump-and-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3ziYvy26frHdqcTMYL4oTFy5mxCz98tTdomhoONq72I4Vv3H2DrjB5ckY
@johncardillo
The same Democrats who called military officer Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset are telling us that Vindman is above criticism because he's a military officer.
@ChuckRossDC
Gabbard leading self-proclaimed top-tier candidate Kamala Harris
David Chalian
@DavidChalian
New CNN/UNH poll numbers from the Granite State (margin of error +\- 4.1%)
Sanders 21%
Warren 18%
Biden 15%
Buttigieg 10%
Gabbard 5%
Klobuchar 5%
Yang 5%
Harris 3%
Steyer 3%
Booker 2%
O’Rourke 2%
Sestak 1%
Post a Comment