snafu

Which may lead one to believe that this is a publisher's ploy more than a #resist hit job. Which makes it more important to find out who the "leaker" was.

Here is a quote from the NYT story: "He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none." Bolton gives manuscript to WH on 12/30/19. Bolton announces he'd testify on 1/5/19. House transmits Articles to Senate on 1/15/19. House managers argue for more evidence and wrap up their opening arguments 1/21 -- 1/24/2020 Why did whomever leaked the story to the NYT wait until after all that happened? Was is leaked earlier and the NYT sat on the story? The timing is strange (aside from the Thomas/Kavanaugh parallels).

Made it in time! Let's put aside for a second the obligation for the House to have developed a full record before voting on Articles, etc. -- that whole argument. I've said it before and I will say it again, the people calling for more witnesses better be careful what they wish for. What looks like R obstruction now can very very easily turn into a D blunder.

There have been a LOT of false alarms and un-attributed allegations from "insiders" that haven't panned out during the past three years. If the Bolton story turns out to be untrue and exaggerated after this Impeachment trial is over and done, then the Senators who steamrollered over it won't suffer at all. This whole process is a political gamble for both parties. It isn't anything more than that. If, however, the Senate does vote to have more witnesses, then the source of the NYT leak should absolutely be known, because that individual would be a witness, too. Isn't the NYT report that Bolton's draft was submitted to the White House for confirmation/correction? The item submitted was a DRAFT of Bolton's book. Drafts get changed a lot I would imagine. This NYT news is pure speculation at this point.

From the link: "Vesper Vibrator Necklace by the company Crave. She wore the sex toy around her neck out to dinner with her boyfriend,..." Nothing says "Yes" more than wearing a vibrator necklace to dinner. If I see that, she's ordering off the specials and no dessert or appetizers.

Cue Ethel Merman.

Oh, now I am reading this post. Maybe there should be more witnesses, maybe not. You’re forgetting that this isn’t a real, judicial trial. This is a political proceeding and if the politicians on either side push too far then the voters will speak. That goes for Dems overplaying their “case”, and for Republicans being “too” obstructionist. That goes also for the President.

Do you need a clearer picture? Have you not formed an opinion based on the picture painted by days and days of House hearings and 21 hours of summary? If you need more, don’t you think it was the House’s job to get more?

This is a false premise. The WH lawyers didn’t do anything more than show how Schiff & co. cherry picked their own evidence. WH lawyers just did the simple job of using the House’s own evidence to disprove theis own case. There’s really no reason for more evidence to be brought forward if the record is clear that there’s nothing to impeach the President over. Schumer it twisting the presentation, but I suppose that was inevitable.

She’s a campaign-trail, pandering liar. This episode with the guy who did the right thing is meaningless. She is never, ever going to pass this proposal. It is a fiction. The only real issue here is that people believe that this is a serious proposal. And you’re right. She’d win a ton of credibility with me if she called for investigations into exactly where the tuition money goes (public schools and private schools). It’s like Obama’s ACA going after health insurance and completely ignoring the reasons why health care costs so much in the first place. Why not do both?

Reptoids signaling the mother ship?

Gaslighting.

I was running errands. Caught what I think was him while driving around. Was he the one explaining about why the White House wouldn’t comply with subpoenas? He was good if it was him. He’s good during the breaks when talking to the press. I don’t think he’s got the right temperament for the hearing.

They need to careful about making this argument too much if they don’t want any more witnesses. If I were the House Managers, I’d take notes every time the WH reps hint at needing to hear from direct fact witnesses.

Thank God I’m watching on CSpan.

Cipollone needs to watch his tone. If he’s starting at this level, he’s only going to ramp up.

Yep. Proof of his a-holeishness.

Almost forgot!

Looks like Bezos owes the Saudi Prince a serious apology. And he owes the rest of us an apology for that jacket.

Hakeem Jeffries from Brooklyn. I think the blanket refusal was explained in a letter Cipollone wrote to Pelosi on October 8. You’re right, the letter says that since the House inquiry was improperly commenced, and because of long-standing confidentiality and Executive privilege reasons, the White House wasn’t going to cooperate. I’m sure we’re going to get the full, unexpurgated, explanation over the next few days. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6459967-PAC-Letter-10-08-2019.html#document/p7

Article 2 argument is that Trump issued a blanket Executive Branch refusal to cooperate with the House investigation. The Managers keep bringing up U.S. vs. Nixon. That Subpoena in question was issued in April, 1974. The Supreme Court decided the case in July, 1974 (THREE MONTHS). Yum, Chicken Salad!!

They made the chicken****. They want the Senate to make the Salad.

Pretty sure that's Yiddish.

What about Waffle House? You know it's the end when the Waffle House closes.

I hope a youtube clip will be okay.