What else can he do except repeat the same things over and over? They got nothin' ... zip ... zero ... multiply 0 by 1,000 times and you still have zero .... but he's hoping we won't notice.

I hope Cipollone starts by pointing out that Trump almost immediately released the transcript of the phone call and then reads shifty's version, slowly and word for word .. or better yet, that he plays the video of shifty's reading of his version ... into the Congressional record ... which clearly shows his bias and animus toward President Trump ... and also shows that he had already made up his mind that President Trump is guilty and, therefore, should never have been allowed to preside over any proceedings involving him. Then move on from there. Regardless, this will definitely come up, and shifty is going to be very sorry indeed for that dirty little trick.

Wow at any rate no more witnesses what that hell are you afraid of you get the Bidens under oath and for what reason can you justify a trial and not call the people to testify that were there for the Trump perfect calls.

Why are you against the testimony of Giuliani Bolton Mulvaney and Pompeo they were there for the perfect phone calls if it was perfect what the hell are the Russian GOP afraid of. It’s a GD childish act and the AMERICAN people will begin to see it, this is all about no witnesses to further advance Trumps agenda of a coverup and corruption. All so Trump can keep his Russian southern r****t supporters because that’s all they need just conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda. Why do the southern r****t morons have such a mutual admiration for Trump and Putin. What the hell are you afraid of the democrats are handing the Bidens to you, just put Trumps criminal cabal on the witness stand.

(ITS A TRUMP AND GOP COVERUP AND ONLY AN I***T CAN WOULD DENY IT)

Has Nadler Consigned Himself 'To The Condemnation Of History'?
By Terence P. Jeffrey | January 22, 2020 | 4:21am EST



House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler — one of the impeachment managers prosecuting President Donald Trump — believes perjury and obstruction of justice need not be impeachable offenses.

Or that is what Nadler claimed in 1998, when he was a dissenting minority member on a Judiciary Committee that approved four articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.

Clinton — like Nadler — was a Democrat.

The full House v**ed to approve two of the four articles against Clinton — with five Democrats v****g for each of the approved articles.

One article alleged Clinton committed perjury in a federal grand jury.

"The Committee concluded that, on August 17, 1998, the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee," said part of the committee's summary of that article.

The other article the House approved alleged Clinton obstructed justice.

The committee cited seven different ways it concluded Clinton had done this. The first it summarized as follows: "The Committee concluded that on or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading."

Nadler said he did not believe the committee had proven these charges — but that, even if true, they were not impeachable.

"The conduct alleged — even if proven — does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense," he said in the committee's Dec. 10, 1998 hearing.

"We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the full House," he said. "To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this committee to the condemnation of history for generations to come."

Nadler further argued that a partisan impeachment v**e must never happen.

"There must never be a narrowly v**ed impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other," Nadler said in that 1998 hearing.

That night, Nadler appeared on CNN's "Crossfire" — where he argued a president could commit "serious crimes" but not merit impeachment.

"Now, I can understand where you say you don't think it's proven," host Pat Buchanan said to Nadler. "I don't understand how you sit there and say it's not serious."

"Oh, I didn't say it's not serious," said Nadler. "I said it's not impeachable. It's a different question. If those charges are proven, they are crimes. They are serious crimes and the president is subject to prosecution — to indictment and prosecution."

"All right," said Buchanan, "if they're serious, serious crimes, are you saying that a president of the United States can commit serious crimes and remain the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?"

"Yes, I am," said Nadler.

Three days before that, Nadler said on CNN it would be wrong for the House to impeach Clinton if members believed the Senate would not remove him.

"It is almost a crime against the country to v**e — for the House to impeach the president, if they are morally certain that the Senate would not convict," Nadler said.

Nadler made an issue of this point in a hearing that day.

He asked Sean Wilentz, a Princeton history professor, to comment on "the propriety of v****g for impeachment if you think (of it), as a punishment in and of itself, and if you think the Senate will probably not convict on the evidence you have?"

"There has never been a case where a House of Representatives has decided to move on (an) impeachment proceeding with the idea that the Senate would not convict," Wilentz said in part of his answer.

Nadler also argued that Republicans seeking impeachment were attempting to nullify an e******n — "absent the fundamental threat to our democratic form of government that would justify" such an act.

"Members of Congress have no power, indeed they have no rights, to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an e******n absent such a compelling threat," he said.

Last month, Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law, explained to Nadler's committee why Clinton's impeachment was correct.

Turley stated that an impeachment could be "based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power," but rebutted the argument that the crimes alleged against Clinton were not impeachable — even if proved.

"There was not a debate over whether Clinton lied under oath," Turley said in written testimony. "Indeed, a federal court later confirmed that Clinton had committed perjury even though he was never charged. Rather, the issue was whether some felonies do not 'rise to the level of impeachment' and, in that case, the alleged perjury and lying to federal investigators concerning an affair with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

"My position in the Clinton impeachment hearing was simple and remains unchanged," Turley said. "Perjury is an impeachable offense. Period."

Now Nadler will try to convince a Republican-controlled Senate that a Republican president should be removed even though the articles of impeachment against him allege no crime — and won not a single Republican v**e in the House.

Will this consign Nadler — to use his own terms — "to the condemnation of history"?

(Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor in chief of CNSNews.com.)

Hey Trump supporters how about the democrats doing a swap with Russian GOP.

H****r B***n and Joe Biden agree to testify under oath if Trump agrees to allow Bolton and Mulvaney testify under oath. Now how can Trumps southern r****t not agree to that. You want the Bidens you got it all your childish conspiracy theories can now be exposed and Trumps quote of everything he did was perfect will now be exposed.

(OMG LET THIS HAPPEN I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO HEAR FROM MULVANEY AND BOLTON AND THE TRUMP I***T BASE GETS WHAT THEY WANT THE BIDENS. YAAAAAAAAAAAA WHAT A GREAT IDEA.

Okay OPP bloggers you got it so let’s see how the Russian GOP reacts to this.

“This is an assault by the Democrats on the Constitution, on the power and independence of the presidency. It is an assault on the separation of powers,” Levin said.

I have a slightly different take on that matter.

Republicans and Trump supporters do not own the Constitution.
The House was set up as the representatives of the people. The House reflects the fact that most people don't support the Trump administration. The House members are, in fact, discharging their Constitutional functions. They are putting the brakes on an administration that seeks to govern as though it has a mandate when it does not have such a mandate.

The Presidency is not an independent government with unlimited independence and powers. It is a third of our government. The powers and independence of the Presidency are checked by the Congress and Supreme Court. Far from being an assault on the separation of powers, this impeachment is an assertion of the power of the House, and Congress in general, to reign in an executive who asserts he has unlimited power and independence. The possibility that the Presidency might not answer to Congress is exactly why the power to impeach was put into the Constitution.

Far from being a disgrace, the government is functioning the way it was designed by the Constitution. The country is divided, therefore the government is divided. Calling the Dems n**is does nothing to alter the fact that they represent the people reminding the administration that it does not have a mandate, nor even popular support.

From the lies about the size of the inauguration crowd to the recent photo of an altered county e******n map on his desk, this President has fooled himself about his popular support. The impeachment is a check on that illusion.