Well, the Senate Republicans got their wish: a 51-49 vote to have no more evidence or witnesses in Donnie's impeachment. But it may just be a victory they'll come to regret as more evidence comes out to prove Trump did, in fact, personally demand a bogus Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens to release US aid. Bear in mind around 70 percent of Americans wanted to see more witnesses, including around half of Republicans.
Now that McConnell and friends have told them to stuff it, what will the consequences be? No one knows but, especially if the Bolton revelations are powerful, they could be quite unpleasant for Mitch, et al. We shall see...
Yes, we shall see. Just like the last minute "bombshells" in the Kavanaugh hearings that if left up to the Dims would still be going on today. Or all the last minute bombshells as the Mueller investigation was winding down, and then the one poor feeble Bob Mueller himself was supposed to deliver. I bet you Dims still believe in Santa Claus too. How many "last minute bombshells" are you going to believe in until you finally accept Trump is here to stay?
So do we believe the Bolton of August or the Bolton of January? Was he lying then or lying now?
Funny how NONE of this came up then, or when he was fired or anytime BEFORE he got $ to sell a book. Hmmmm...
you post it. Had you done so, you would have noticed that Bolton did NOT say “a high priority for the administration… is maintaining a free Ukraine free of corruption, ” as this Red State bozo claims. Mr. Bolton, famous for using words carefully, said this was a high priority for ….drum roll…”the United States” – which, of course, is what the House witnesses testified. Congress mandated corruption certification for Ukraine and the DOD twice certified that Ukraine had met corruption standards. Trump-not so much.
Pretty damning, don’t you think, that he carefully said this is the United States policy rather than Trump’s policy. Hmmm.
Sorry but no contradictions at all.
Maybe you should have gone to the Fox website as a link. No, wait, they said the same thing-probably where this bozo got his “story.”
I’ve got it- the perfect website for you - Info wars. You’ve got to admit the Info wars website is more credible than the ones you are using. Say hello to Alex for me. LOL.
Now I got it! Bolton was differentiating between the "United States" and the "Trump Administration." LOL
So it was the "Obama administration" that signed off on the Iran deal and NOT the "United States?"
Maybe YOU should have shown up for Dershowitz's "separation of powers" quiz this morning. LOL
and Mr. Schiff about 100 times in the trial.
On a side note , did you notice that Mr. Philbin distanced the defense from the Dershowitz literal argument saying that is not our claim, and then Dershowitz also backed off (Groundhog Day...again- waah "I was misinterpreted. I didn't mean what I said" " ) and the ultimate insult - Whoopi Goldberg threatened to cut him off bc he wouldn't admit that no one else buys his argument.
Good thing his argument was so easy to understand as one poster put it. One question - was that you leading the "subsequent retreat" LOL-
"The comments Wednesday and subsequent retreat by Dershowitz, late addition to Trump's impeachment defense team, mark just the latest instance where attention has fallen on his seemingly contradictory statements.
Earlier this month, he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he is "much more correct right now" in his current views on what qualifies a president for impeachment than in his nearly opposite views during the Bill Clinton impeachment.
"I didn't do research back then, I relied on what professors said ... because that issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment," Dershowitz said.
And on Tuesday, CNN's KFile reported that Dershowitz had said in 2016 that he believed Trump was more corrupt than Hillary Clinton and more likely to continue being corrupt as president."
Counselor, have you not heard of "Netflix." Look into it. 
And I really I think when one stoops to referencing "The Whoopster", that is an official "I lost this argument" moment. LOL
Time to move on Mari. Your side lost and it lost big. The only thing left to see if Dershowitz et al convinced any Dems to vote for acquittal. Oh the irony!
Don't be too despondent. I am sure at this very moment that crack staff over there at the DNC, who are currently doing a great job fucking "The Bern" again, will be looking to find someone that will nail Trump on some bogus charge.
Look on the bright side; I heard they just fired the law firm of "Avenatti, Parnas and Cohen." Thats a step in the right direction. LOL
Btw are you available? You and Stormi are ex-porn stars so there's that. LOL
More to come...
Even if the Senators assumed Trump actively engaged in trying to investigate Biden corruption, it wasn't an impeachable offense (in fact it was an admirable good.) The idea that Biden is above the law is something the Democrats just invented. There is no historical basis to prove Biden's are above investigation. Shocking as that may seem to Democrats.
No Democrat has ever contended that the Bidens should not be investigated because they are “above the law.” In order for the FBI to open an investigation, there has to be a “credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an American” is committing a federal crime.
That is what is missing. That Hunter Biden cashed in on his name to get a Board seat with zero qualifications and did zero work is not a reasonable basis to believe he committed a crime. If it was, many “no work no qualifications” directors on corporate Boards on many corporations would be investigated. George Schultz and Gen Mattis, for example, were on the Board of Theranos, the blood testing corporation.
This remains true even if Burisma thought having him on the Board would give some protection.
That Joe Biden headed US policy to fire Shokin is likewise not a reasonable basis to believe he committed a crime. Even Politico has rated the Trump contrary ads as “false:”
Biden called for Ukraine to fire Shokin, the prosecutor general, but so did many others. The facts show that Biden wanted Shokin removed due to widespread concerns that Shokin was ineffective in pursuing corruption cases — not that he was too aggressively pursuing cases. The Trump campaign cites Shokin himself, but he is not a reliable source. And Democrats want to impeach Trump for using foreign policy to promote his own re-election, not his desire to investigate corruption.
This ad claims a compilation of "facts," but it’s presentation and lack of context is so misleading as to be inaccurate. We rate this statement False.
So as Mr Schiff has pointed out, there simply is no evidence to even open an investigation. That’s why Trump went to Ukraine rather than telling the DOJ or FBI to do this. Nothing wrong with being partisan, but at least try to understand the facts a little better.
As if there were an investigation and the Bidens were cleared. We both know no such investigation ever was held except perhaps in the age addled mind of Joe Biden himself.
An often used argument of the left is "If Trump is innocent, why doesn't he welcome an investigation to PROVE it?" the very same argument could be used in regards to the Bidens.
There is ZERO implication in the word's definition of an investigation. It simply means something has been shown to be false. That COULD be by an investigation but doesn't have to be. And NO ONE has shown the Biden allegations to be true, though much has been revealed about them. Which means they are false.
Once again you have shown yourself to be a logic-chopper who slices the salami so thin one could read a book though it.
Read this definition. Then report back to the class as to whether it, or any other definition of "debunked," uses the word "investigation."
-- Modified on 2/1/2020 11:34:52 AM
-- Modified on 2/1/2020 11:36:17 AM
run to the dictionary to define words. The "onus" was on Jack to explain that but sadly he never did. Too busy leading the Dershowitz retreat I guess.
Sorry, my finger slipped and I accidentally hit send, my bad
Back to our pedantic friend, since the facts aren't on his side he'd rather try to drag me into an endless debate about the word "debunked" completely ignoring the fact that Sleepy Uncle Joe himself has claimed that the issue was "thoroughly investigated" and rejected, a claim we all know is untrue.
I don't know what a full blown investigation of the Bidens is going to turn up, but the entire family has gotten quite wealthy since CUJ ended up as Barrack Obama's boy. I bet you if a tenth of the effort was put into investigating the Bidens as has already gone into investigating Trump that would be the end of Creepy Sleepy's political career.
-- Modified on 2/1/2020 1:09:06 PM
But I have ZERO interest in "debating" with you since that only leads to your salami-slicing, bloviating and distorting.
GaGa waves the white flag AGAIN.
And please don't "bet" on anything. Another empty gesture by you.
-- Modified on 2/1/2020 4:28:28 PM
being in Ukraine and maybe that the election interference was by Russia and not Ukraine.
But you are right that, since there has been no investigation at all, they certainly have not been "cleared." However, nobody "welcomes" an investigation when there is no evidence to even open an investigation. Trump, of course, was accused of demanding a quid quo pro from Ukraine which he denied a hundred times, there was evidence sufficient to investigate him on this, and if untrue the witnesses he ordered not to testify arguably could have cleared him.
The fact that you so accurately laid out the facts and showed Trump's attacks on Biden and his son to be a smoke screen, is a success for Trump.
Leaves any intelligent person wondering, how in the world, could one as corrupt as the nepotist Trump (consistent pattern for lying, Trump U. fraud, Trump charity fraud, Trump hotel in D.C. multiple conflicts of interest, Ivanka's China patents, you get the message, way too many to list), divert attention from his own wrongdoings in such a blatant/obvious fashion, without regard to his own pattern of corruption? How could the 34% who support him turn a blind eye?
Even after Ukraine passed congress' (house of representatives AND the senate) corruption test and mandated by law Ukraine would receive the military assistance in question, there is no plausible explanation for withholding aide to Ukraine.
If Trump truly was intent on limiting foreign aide as a result of his campaign to root out corruption, then how many other countries did Trump look at closely to determine whether or not they were corrupt BEFORE granting aide, and AFTER congress had already approved that aide? NONE!
IBD/TIPP (late January 2020)
Trump/Biden 48/49
Trump/Warren 50/46
Trump/Sanders 49/47
Trump/Buttigieg 48/45
Trump/Bloomberg 47/48
Considering the margin of error of these polls, it's like 50/50 Trump vs anyone else. Considering only wonks are paying attention at this time its an approximate measure of Trumps approval rating (which is similar to Obama's at this stage in his presidency. Of course Obama went on to a second term.)
for unknowingly reinforcing my point. By focusing only on the fact in my post you disagreed with and by ignoring the rest, you have engaged in something I call; "affirmation by exclusion." A concept I teach in one of my logic classes.
Don't worry, I won't charge you for the free lesson. And thank you again, seems the only way you will acknowledge any of Trump's missteps.
"I have no source for my 34% claim"
A very good example of "deflection" a concept that needs no further explanation, as such I won't charge you for the "lesson" either
when there IS a lesson to learn. Not holding my breath until I learn one from those who fail to acknowledge even one obvious fact when it is screaming at them as they turn a deaf ear.
Excuse me if I do not insult, disparage, or dismiss objective sources in my posts. The merit of each fact stands on its own. I will acknowledge though, that you and a few of your closest TER friends ARE quite good at deflection and admit my posts may never reach the very high standard of deflection you and your "friends" have set.
"I STILL have nothing to support my claim"
I notice not only do you not "insult, disparage, or dismiss" objective sources in your posts, you seem to have an aversion to linking them as well. ROFLMFAO
Which is exactly why, many years ago. he failed to be elected president of his high school debate team.
Maybe you had a source I wasn't aware about the topic at hand?
But you have now made 2 posts and NONE of them have addressed my question, as per usual with you.
So this is easy.
Were you lying about it and thought you could get one by the class or were you just wrong and ran away when the facts are "unfavorable" to you? Do tell.
No matter the leaning, no matter how unfavorable the facts, "the truth WILL set you free," promise. 
Anytime you want to tell us the truth, I will be waiting.
What was that deal with the last question where Nadler runs real fast to the podium in order to get there before Schiff? A little bit of bad blood there?
As stupid as this House impeachment was, it did accomplish one thing ... no future impeachment will come out of the House that isn't fully ready to go to trial. Democrat stupidity has inoculated us from repeats of this travesty.
That Rudy Giuliani started talking to Ukraine in late 2018. Well before Joe Biden announced his campaign.