If Bolton testimony is blocked, our democracy has ended.

I was reading through the pinned post about 'time to chill out' or whatever, and I assume when a few of you call me bobby you are referring to Bobby The Great. Am I right? I'm not him, but did he get banned or something? I also discovered that Sweet Lou has been purposely trolling for years under the guise as 'satire' to entertain himself. That was pretty funny, especially how emotionally charged up he is right now about this. I think even he tried to say I was O's alt account or something.

 

Did Elizabeth Warren's grandstanding sink the witnesses vote?

https://reason.com/2020/01/31/hail-to-the-chief-2/

excerpt:

Throughout most of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice Roberts said little, and he did it very well. But at several junctures, when tested, Roberts handled himself with composure and poise. Consider a few examples.

First, Senator Elizabeth Warren posed a written question that was a not-too-thinly veiled criticism of the Chief. Roberts, without flinching, read the question aloud:

Roberts showed no visible reaction after reading the question. Ultimately, Warren's question may have backfired. Senator Murkowski may have voted against subpoenas in light of Warren's attack on the Chief. She explained, "It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the chief justice."
​

citing this piece from CNN:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-lisa-murkowski-john-roberts/index.html

 

I’m sorry, but the “my feewings were hurt” is not or should not be a legitimate argumentation point for a senator, versus evidence and obstruction of evidence. Murk was clearly grasping for another excuse to bend the knee to Cult Trump.

weak sauce, in other words.

that said, warren’s question was useless and, as usual, part of hectoring behavior from her.

 

Bob, do you think the Democratic party is increasingly the party of sore losers and of "my feewings are hurt" ? first it's the Hillary sulking, then it's the non-stop bang-the-drum-against-Trump since Inauguration Day, now it's "this wasn't even a trial and the system was rigged against us!!" in other words,



Someone yesterday commented on how bad the "optics" are regarding the Republicans and the impeachment. I actually think the optics are far worse for the Democrats, particularly for independents and swing voters. When is the whining going to end and when will the Democrats get back to being the party that gets things done?

Ronald Reagan is said to have remarked, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." The incessant burbling of being sore losers is going to eventual wear on the uncommitted voters and probably even with older more conservative Democrats. I know it is for me.

What's the Democratic Party's long-range game plan here? other than making it hard for legitimate candidates like Sanders and Gabbard to compete on a level playing field?

 

if the House didn't bother to subpoena Bolton, why should the Senate?

 

I think its the Chicken Little stuff that gets on everyone's nerves.

'Our democracy is dead' , 'climate change will kill everyone in 20 years', 'without net neutrality the internet is dead', 'Trump just started WWIII', etc....

everything is so over the top with these people.

 

Unlikely. That cake was baked before the trial started.

 

Since the House asked Bolton to testify, why didn't the Senate?

 

FIFY.

 

The premise here is funny. It basically says we're totally fine with subverting the justice department to achieve our ends, in all sorts of ways, but oh boy, don't let one guy testify in the sham impeachment, and democracy has ended!!!

It's comical

 

Dem's blocked every GOP witness in the House, but if the Senate does it, democracy has ended!

 

Well, some from the left throught the DEM in power didn't do enough. What you call "sore losers" is to some "non-fighter" and to other "just the right temperament". I think it's more a reflection of HOW YOU view the Dem party than what is the Dem party. Maybe you also have a similar or same view toward the Republican party. But if you don't, I suggest you slow down and look carefully at your bias. Just a few examples...

Trump was saying the system was rigged before he won. So unfair.

Nearly every day Trump complain about the unfairness of the media and government toward him.

The House Republican literally complain about how *UNFAIR* the House impeachment process for weeks just 2 months ago. And the GOP Senate uses that in their reasonings to not have a fair trial (yea, that's what she said - it's so unfair there isn't reasons to continue it - lol).

The non-stop bang-the-drum-against-Obama since...


What can the DEM do about it? They have to win back power. 2018 was a start. We'll see what happens in 2020.

 

This is a lie. Just outright and easy to fact check.

 

A lot of this is on Bolton, the House wanted you to testify but you wouldn't voluntarily. Now once we're in the middle of the Senate trial you want to testify, he should have done his duty when asked to by the House but of course this whole mess will help him sell more books so...

 

It would be nice if we can work from the same facts.. but that's no longer the case for some time now.

 

I know that you see them that way, but since you asked: no, I don't think the Democratic party is increasingly the party of sore losers, etc. Not at all.
I know this is a right-wing narrative, but I honestly don't get it.

The Dems I know (a ****-ton of them/us) were not "sore losers" about 2016. They were (1) mad as hell at Hillary for running a bad campaign, and (2) mad as hell to have Donald J. Trump now leading the country. If you'd given us a Jeb Bush, a Romney, a Rubio, a McCain president, you wouldn't have had -- IMHO -- the huge marches centered on women and on science. For many of us, DJT is the distillation, the epitome, of America's worst characteristics. (I don't need to test your patience by listing these things; they are legion.) So... to me that's not "sore losing." Who cares that we "lost" an election? If losing to a decent human being, that would have been disappointing but fine. But this guy, with his past, and his sky-high pile of lies, and injured parties (women, renters, contractors, on and on) in his wake? I've never, in a lifetime full of Republican presidents, been made to feel like the president actively loathes who I am (a well-educated scientist who lives in a blue state and takes information seriously). I know a lot of non-white people who feel that loathing more acutely, of course.

Lots of us gave him a chance, but he threw out any chance to be a uniter within his first 100 days. (And yes, I know some didn't give him a chance.) I was ready for infrastructure and a "uniter," but I got a muslim ban. I got a bunch of thug or ridiculously partisan appointments to important positions. I got daily insults hurled at fellow Americans from on high.

As for this trial, yeah, it was indeed a sham that they wouldn't call witnesses. To me, it's not "whining" to point that out. I don't think speaking truth to power is whining. I don't hear "it isn't fair!" I hear "y'all are some weak ass cultist b****es who aren't keeping your oath to our country."

But to each their own ears on the world. I respect that. Cheers!

 

what do you make of the argument that the "trial" was not really a trial, that the Senate's role is closer to that of the sentencing phase of a trial:

But this isn’t really a trial in any meaningful sense.

The House has, for all intent and purposes, already conducted a trial. Its Constitutional role is to adjudicate guilt and it has, granted along party lines, pronounced the President guilty.

The Senate’s role is more analogous to the sentencing phase than a trial. The question is whether to remove the President for the crimes, not whether he did it.

In 1999, there was zero question that Clinton did what he was accused of. But there was a sense that it didn’t merit removal and the Senate voted not to remove him—with even a couple of Republicans joining in.

There’s no question that Trump is guilty. He’s all but admitted to it. But there’s also no real question that Senate Republicans will decline to remove him.​

 

So now that "democracy has ended" what will be the next manufactured pants on fire sham scandal for the left to pull put of their asses?

 

Even the sanctimonious fake Christians are pawns in the Trump cult of personality. Good job, good effort.

A good question for the pawns. What do you call a government where the head executive can break the law with impunity because he is the law? What do you call a government without a check on the executive?

No youtube video or photoshop answers please. Try your best.

 

another question. In response to Dana Millbank's lament in the Washington Post that "The Senate impeachment trial was rigged!" Ann Althouse writes of having "rig fatigue":

There are things I'm not reading this morning. And I mean this phrase "not reading" to denote an active process. I should write it as one word: notreading.

For the list of things I'm notreading this morning: "The Senate impeachment trial was rigged!" (by Dana Milbank in WaPo).

Yeah, it was rigged. Everything is rigged. The election was rigged. Trump isn't really President. The impeachment trial was rigged. The acquittal won't count as an acquittal. If Trump wins reelection, it will be because it was rigged. It's all rigged. The Constitution itself is rigged. What's with that 2/3 vote requirement? Rigged. Electoral college? Rigged! Life itself is rigged!...​

I know she doesn't use the term, "sore loser," but wouldn't you say Millbank's complaint resembles sore loserdom?