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?

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.

Now I got it! Bolton was differentiating between the "United States" and the "Trump Administration." LOL

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.

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.

and Mr.  Schiff about 100 times in the trial.

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.

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.

That Rudy Giuliani started talking to Ukraine in late 2018. Well before Joe Biden announced his campaign.

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."

being in Ukraine and maybe that the election interference was by Russia  and not Ukraine.

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.

Counselor, have you not heard of "Netflix." Look into it.

Source, please.

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.

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

Sorry, my finger slipped and I accidentally hit send, my bad

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

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.

"I have no source for my 34% claim"  

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.

"I STILL have nothing to support my claim"

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?