Lead impeachment manager Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff says President Trump's lawyers made a "powerful case" on the Senate floor today as to why John Bolton ought to be called to testify.

Asked about the repeated attacks against him personally by Trump's team, Schiff called it "tactic" meant to distract from a "weak" case by the defense.
"I mean, this is again, a criminal defense tactic which is when the evidence is damning against your client, you attack the prosecution. So, there's nothing new or notable about that. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't done more of that because the case is so weak," he said.
Asked by CNN if there's any situations where he would appear as a witness, Schiff said, "I don't have anything to add." 
He added: "Why is it that the President can't call anyone who worked around him in his defense? And the answer is they know he's guilty. And so they want to throw up this false choice. Well, we're just going to seek to inflict pain on the other side by calling Hunter Biden or irrelevant people like Adam Schiff. The American people can see through that." 
See Also: Meghan McCain Addresses her Fight with Abby Huntsman: “It’s cruel, it’s very cruel and this has been a really, really, rough few weeks for me."
On behalf of many Republican Senators, including Hawley and Cruz, Ron Johnson submitted a question to both the House Managers and the President’s counsel regarding the Whistleblower and Sean Misko which Schiff didn’t like and refused to answer.
Rep. Adam Schiff: "This question refers to allegation in a newspaper article which are circulating smears on my staff and ask me to respond to those smears. I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever."
The question which is too long to transcribe, related to the early 2017 meeting between whistleblower Eric Ciaramella, Sean Misko and Vindman where they were all overheard saying they needed to take Trump out. Johnson also wanted to know why Schiff suddenly hired Misko the day after Trump’s phone call with Zelensky and what role Misko played in the investigation.
As you can see from the tweet, Schiff took umbrage at the question and refused to answer it, calling it smears against his staff. He also berated Republicans for attacking the whistleblower, something he said the statute protects against. That portion starts at 1:55 in the video.
Trump’s legal team responded at 4:44, pointing out that Schiff is the one who made the whistleblower relevant, claiming he would testify. They also pointed out that the whistleblower statute only protects against retribution in terms of job loss and has nothing to do with the relevance of the whistleblower.
Watch the video for more…

Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

Sen. Ted Cruz : "If we call John Bolton, I promise you we're calling Hunter Biden too."

Ted Cruz refusing to answer if he has become a shill for ⁦Donald Trump

Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

Don Lemon is facing serious backlash on Twitter after a segment on depicting Trump’s voters as “rubes.”

During his show Saturday night, Lemon laughed as former GOP strategist Rick Wilson criticized reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had angrily challenged a reporter to find Ukraine on an unmarked map.
“He also knows deep within his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter ‘U’ and a picture of an actual, physical crane next to it,” Wilson said. “He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world and so that’s partly him playing to the base and playing to their audience, you know, the ‘credulous boomer rube’ demo that backs Donald Trump.”
From there, Wilson put on a Southern accent to imitate someone in what he called the “credulous boomer rube” demographic: “Donald Trump is the smart one. Y’all elitists are dumb.”
“You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling,” added New York Times columnist Wajahat Ali as Wilson chimed back in, “And your readin’!”
“And your reading,” agreed Ali. “Your geography, knowin’ other countries, sippin’ your latte.”
“All those lines on the map!” said Wilson while Lemon laughed loudly.
“Only elitists know where Ukraine is,” said Ali, suddenly giving up the act and saying, “I’m sorry. I apologize. But it was Rick’s fault. I blame Rick.”
“That was good,” Lemon said, before trying to get the panel back on track.
Trump retweeted the contemptible video on his Twitter and all he said was “Don Lemon, the dumbest man on television (with terrible ratings!).” And yet this idiot is claiming that Trump and his supporters who are upset and retweeting the video are trying to bully and intimidate him?
It’s bad enough that Ali went on national TV mocking Trump and his supporters. Seriously bad. Now he’s decrying Trump supporters for being upset with the video and retweeting it, calling them ‘bad faith actors who cry fake victimhood’? What an elitist schmuck!
Also, this isn’t a ‘harmless, silly 30 second clip’ either. If you don’t believe me, then just watch what happens in November.

Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

Bolton's team may have leaked the information themselves while using the media as unwitting tools to juice their book sales

The Times further claimed Bolton had shared a manuscript of his forthcoming book with "close associates" -- prompting Bolton's team to deny the claim, and assert that the National Security Council's [NSC's] review process of pending manuscripts is "corrupted" and prone to leaks.
A "pre-publication review" at the NSC, which functions as the White House's national security forum, is standard for any former government officials who held security clearances and publicly write or speak publicly about their official work. The review typically would focus on ferreting out any classified or sensitive material in advance of publication, and could take from days to months.
Trump fired back on Twitter on Sunday to refute Bolton's claims, saying he "NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens." Trump went on to accuse Bolton of trying to "sell a book," noting that Bolton did not complain publicly or privately about the aid holdup "at the time of his very public termination."

The New York Times is reporting that John Bolton’s book will implicate el Presidente as tying military aid to Ukraine to investigating the Bidens.

Here we go:
President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.
Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.
I can see people are crapping on this because it’s from the New York Times, but it kinda fits with what we’ve heard out of Bolton, right? There’s that quote about Giuliani’s “drug deal,” which also could be complete bunk.
Anyway the Dems are POUNCING on this report to demand Bolton’s testimony for the trial:

Update – here’s Schumer’s tweet:
So we shall see if this report is true, and what comes out of it.
This is very interesting. Bolton’s spokesperson isn’t denying the report, but implying that if there was any leak from the book, it would have to come from the White House?! Or maybe the NSC, which doesn’t really like Trump:

I dunno. What do you make of that? Is that a roundabout way of denying the report? If so, why not just deny it? Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of Bolton since his exit from the administration…
And now a statement from Bolton’s lawyer:

Curioser and curiouser.

Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

Clip Nôi Tiếng "Ăn Chuối Anh Ơi"

Một tuyệt phẩm với sự kết hợp của tài tử Elliot Benchetrit và cô gái trẻ trung "Xinh Đẹp". Đây chắc chắn là clip ngắn để các bạn xem giải trí. Hiện hai bạn  này đang "hót" trên thế giới được nhiều người phê bình, có người khen tốt, tuyệt, cũng có người chê hành động không đúng.

Các bạn hãy xem và nhận xét nhé, chúc xem clip vui vẽ.

Read More Add your Comment 4 nhận xét

President Trump’s lawyers accused Adam Schiff of lying to the American people

Trump lawyers Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow repeatedly ripped into Democrats, especially Schiff, on the first day of arguments in the Senate impeachment trial, as the House Intelligence Committee chairman -- who is serving as the top Democratic impeachment manager -- sat up straight in his chair and didn’t take his eyes off his accusers.
The lawyers invoked Schiff’s name over and over again, accusing him of hiding documents, conducting an unfair impeachment inquiry and fabricating the text of the July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine.
Just as Schiff sat down from making a lengthy opening case for new witnesses and documents, Sekulow took over and with a booming voice accused Schiff of telling falsehoods and “put[ting] words into transcripts that did not exist.”
Schiff kept his eyes wide open and glued on Sekulow, possibly aghast that Trump’s lawyers were putting him on trial.
“Mischaracterized” is just a diplomatic way of saying Schiff lied about the identity of “Mr. Z“, which he clearly knew because he would have had the unredacted text messages.
I’d say I’m shocked about the whole thing, but Schiff has a long history of lying. His most notable recent lies are that he lied about meeting with the whistleblower and he lied about Trump’s phone call in one of his hearings. Now he’s lying again with these Parnas text messages. Let’s not forget the lies he told during the Mueller investigation where he claimed that there were no problems with the FISA applications.
What a lying putz.

Read More Add your Comment 1 nhận xét

Kellyanne Conway calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment case “rushed, specious, and historically thin.”

She also pointed out that while the Democrats lost their opportunity to summon former National Security Advisor John Bolton during the impeachment proceedings, Pelosi’s hand-picked impeachment managers are trying to make up for lack of evidence by trying to call Bolton to testify before the Senate.
“They failed to make a case [in the House] and now they want the Senate to play cleanup,” Conway said.
Conway’s comments came after Trump on Monday blasted congressional Democrats for “zero fairness” in their bid to impeach him just one day before the Senate trial officially begins.
She responded “Very little, though the president may exert executive privilege.”
When she was asked if ‘executive privilege’ was the strategy if Bolton testifies, Conway just said she’d let the lawyers file their brief today.
She went on to suggest that the House should have called Bolton to testify if Democrats were so anxious to hear from him. Rather, she says, they put forward a very rushed, specious, and historically thin case of impeachment against Trump.
Trump would agree with this, as he just tweeted about the hypocrisy of wanting Bolton to testify now:
Well they were in a rush until they weren’t, as we saw with Pelosi holding the impeachment articles for almost a month. If Trump really feels that the calls for Bolton to testify is a travesty, he may very well invoke executive privilege. I guess we’ll find out when we cross that bridge.
Trump also went after ‘Cryin’ Chuck Schumer’ for demanding fairness when he never said a world about the House refusing to give Trump the fairness he deserved in their process:

Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

President Donald Trump's legal team on Monday filed a lengthy response to charges

They argue the impeachment was a partisan sham that failed to prove any violation of law. They warn against dangerous precedents should Democrats' efforts prove successful. And they insist Trump was well within his prerogatives to raise the issue of his political rivals with a foreign leader.
    "The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution and to our democratic institutions," the President's lawyers wrote in opening sentences of the document. "The Articles themselves -- and the rigged process that brought them here -- are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected. They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails."
    Trump’s White House legal team has now filed a legal brief calling for the Senate to “swiftly” acquit Trump in the impeachment trial because he did nothing wrong:
    NY TIMES – President Trump’s legal team will call on the Senate on Monday to “swiftly reject” the impeachment charges and acquit him, maintaining that he committed no impeachable offense and has been the victim of an illegitimate partisan effort to take him down.
    In a lengthy brief to be submitted to the Senate the day before his trial begins in earnest, the president’s lawyers plan to make the most sustained argument the White House has advanced since the House opened its impeachment inquiry last fall, contending that the two articles of impeachment approved largely along party lines were constitutionally flawed and set a dangerous precedent.
    Mr. Trump’s lawyers plan to dismiss the largely party-line impeachment by the House as a “brazenly political act” following a “rigged process” that should be repudiated by the Senate, according to a person working with his legal team, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the submission of the trial brief. They will argue that neither of the articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump are valid because they do not state a violation of the law and they would in effect try to punish the president for foreign policy decisions and efforts to preserve executive prerogatives.
    The AP has more details on the filing:
    President Donald Trump’s legal team asserted Monday that he did “absolutely nothing wrong,” calling the impeachment case against him “flimsy” and a “dangerous perversion of the Constitution.”
    The 110-page filing from the White House shifted the tone toward a more legal response. Still, it hinged on Trump’s assertion he did nothing wrong and did not commit a crime — even though impeachment does not depend on a material violation of law but rather on the more vague definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors” as established in the Constitution.
    It says the two articles of impeachment brought against the president — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — don’t amount to impeachment offenses. It asserts that the impeachment inquiry centered on Trump’s request that Ukraine’s president open an investigation into Democratic rival Joe Biden was never about finding the truth.
    “Instead, House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “All of that is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.”
    I’ve been looking for the actual brief to post here. As soon as I find it I’ll add it for you to read.

    Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

    The Republicans have yet to completely shut the door on new witnesses

    Senators Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Susan Collins, R-Maine,LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-South Carolina are among a small group of Republicans who have yet to completely shut the door on new witnesses, wanting to hear arguments first. Democrats would need them and at least one more in order to be able to call witnesses, but Graham warned that if they get their wish, the GOP will look to call defense witnesses such as Hunter Biden.

    1. CRUZ: Well, that's right. It's kind of strange how we got here. So Democrats have been having hearings, have been doing impeachment for months in the House. They brought in all sorts of witnesses. They blocked the minority from having any witnesses. And then, as soon as we get to the Senate, the Democratic talking point is, we want more witnesses. Never mind all the witnesses they called before. They want yet more. And they're trying to delay this. They're trying to drag this out. They want this trial to go on forever, because they have a political objective of attacking the president. What I have said and what I have urged the conference is, is, listen, if we go down the road of witnesses, we're not going to do what the House did. We're not going to have a one-sided kangaroo court. Instead, we're going to respect reciprocity. What does that mean? That means, if the prosecution gets a witness, the defense gets a witness. If the prosecution gets two, the defense gets two. That means, if the prosecution gets to call John Bolton, then the president gets to call Hunter Biden. And I got to tell you, the Democrats are terrified about seeing a witness like Hunter Biden testify, because they don't want to hear evidence of actual corruption, of corruption, potentially, of Joe Biden, corruption that occurred during the Obama administration. They blocked all those witnesses in the House. They're not going to succeed in blocking them in the Senate. If they want to go down the road of witnesses, that means the president enjoys the rights to due process, which means he can call witnesses and lay out his defense.


    2. Lisa Murkowski: "And so I don't want this proceeding to be a circus,...I don't want it to be viewed as a mockery or a kangaroo court."


    3. Susan Collins: “I think it’s likely because there are holes in the record where hearing from witnesses would expand my understanding,” she said. “I haven’t made a decision on any particular witnesses. When we reach the appropriate point in the trial, I would like to hear from both sides which witnesses, if any, they would like to call.”

    4.SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Well, I hope to have the trial over by the end of January. We would use the Clinton model, where you take the record established in the House, let the House managers appointed by Pelosi make the argument. Let the president make his arguments of why the two articles are flawed. And then we will decide whether or not we want witnesses. But this should be done in a couple weeks.


    Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

    Graham calls for swift end to impeachment trial - “If we call one witness, we’re going to call all the witnesses,”

    The Senate trial is set to begin Tuesday. Graham had previously floated the idea that the GOP majority could immediately vote to dismiss the case before hearing any arguments, but now he states that this does not appear to be a possibility given the lack of sufficient Republican support for such action.

    “Yeah that’s dead for practical purposes,” Graham told “Fox News Sunday,” explaining, “the idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen; we don’t have the votes for that.”
    Graham remains confident that Republicans are still united enough to acquit Trump at the conclusion of the trial. How long the trial goes is still up in the air. Graham would neither confirm nor deny reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans on keeping the Senate in session for 12 hours a day so that House Democrats would be done presenting their arguments Wednesday.
    Well this is interesting. There is a report that Mitch McConnell has arranged for a kill switch so that he can dismiss the impeachment trial if it becomes a “circus.” And guess who gets to define what a “circus” is? Cocaine Mitch. From the Daily Wire:
    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has reportedly created a “kill switch” for President Donald Trump’s upcoming Senate impeachment trial that would allow for the president’s legal team to either seek an immediate verdict or a dismissal of the case if the trial descends into a circus spectacle.
    “I am familiar with the resolution as it stood a day or two ago,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Axios. “My understanding is that the resolution will give the president’s team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time…”
    “Hawley added that in the most recent draft of the organizing resolution he saw there was an option for the president’s counsel to make a motion in multiple places, including at the beginning of the proceedings,” Axios reported. “Hawley added that if the final resolution does not allow Trump’s lawyers the option to dismiss or move to judgment at a ‘meaningful point’ in the trial, he would be ‘very, very surprised,’ and might not vote for the organizing resolution.”
    Wow. I could see this almost being a bluff just to pressure Dems into staying in line. On the other hand, McConnell is known as a master of legislative procedure, and Dems failed in their attempt to control the terms of the trial. On the other other hand, I could also see this being politically difficult for Republicans to use unless they show conclusively that the Dems are acting inappropriately…

    Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

    Impeachment manager Rep Hakeem Jeffries reacts on FOX News Sunday: "We don't dislike this president...but we do love America."

    McConnell and other Republicans used the precedent set by the Clinton impeachment in arguing against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when they pushed for approving additional witnesses before the trial started. In the Clinton case, the subject of witnesses was discussed after both sides presented arguments, but Jeffries noted that this resulted in key witnesses being called.

    “There were three additional witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky -- who was at the center of the impeachment in 1998 -- who did not testify before the House proceedings but was called to be present as it relates to what took place in the Senate," Jeffries recalled on "Fox News Sunday."
    "If Senator McConnell is saying that we’re going to follow the Clinton model, then let’s just follow the Clinton model.”
    Jeffries down’t really answer. I have to say I’ve never been impressed with this guy because he always offers canned responses to questions and doesn’t really seem to offer any original thought of his own. And this was no different. He just rambled on and on about the reasons for the impeachment and mostly ignored the substance of Wallace’s question.
    But even other Democrats cringed when they saw how happy those politicians were to impeach Trump. And that is not gonna help their cause…

    Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

    The Trump administration announced a rollback of Michelle Obama’s signature initiative for healthy school lunches on Friday

    On Friday, Barack Obama continued his streak of heart-felt posts for his wife with a photo collage, wishing her a happy birthday. He posted it on his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

    "In every scene, you are my star, @MichelleObama! Happy birthday, baby!," the former president wrote in his posts.
      The black and white photos show the love birds hugging, kissing, and mugging for the camera.
      The Trump administration moved on Friday to roll back school nutrition standards championed by Michelle Obama, an effort long sought by food manufacturers and some school districts that have chafed at the cost of Mrs. Obama’s prescriptions for fresh fruit and vegetables.
      The proposed rule by the Agriculture Department, coming on the former first lady’s birthday, would give schools more latitude to decide how much fruit to offer during breakfast and what types of vegetables to include in meals. It would also broaden what counts as a snack.
      A spokeswoman for the department said that it had not intended to roll out the proposed rule on Mrs. Obama’s birthday, although some Democratic aides on Capitol Hill had their doubts. Food companies applauded the proposal, while nutritionists condemned it, predicting that starchy foods like potatoes would replace green vegetables and that fattening foods like hamburgers would be served daily as “snacks.”
      “Schools and school districts continue to tell us that there is still too much food waste and that more common-sense flexibility is needed to provide students nutritious and appetizing meals,” Sonny Perdue, the agriculture secretary, said in a statement. “We listened and now we’re getting to work.”
      This has been a pretty good week for Michelle Obama.
      So a couple of things. You aren’t gonna get our fat diabetes-ridden children to be healthy by forcing veggies down their throats at school. Yes, there should be better options, but trust me on this, you need discipline and good parenting to force kids to eat well.
      On the other hand, the reason we even have to argue about this stupid issue is because the government has tasked itself with feeding kids. And they’ve made up ridiculous standards to make it easier for more and more kids to be dependent on government as early as possible.
      I don’t really care about this either way. But I will say that it’s pretty horrible that the media is freaking out over this just because it’s an insult to princess Michelle Obama, when they didn’t really give a damn when Obama spat on the foothold that the military had in Iraq, just to crap on George Dubya Bush’s legacy. That actually mattered, that led to ISIS, and that led to even more instability in the Middle East, and more torturous murders. But hey, let’s get all worked up about Michelle Obama being insulted instead.
      ~ ~ ~
      That’s it for Saturday. I do hope you’re having a good weekend. Have an open thread, give me some predictions to guide my NFL championship betting tomorrow.
      And also check this out:

      Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét

      Joy Reid brought on a “body language expert” to accuse Bernie of lying because his physical posture resembles that of a turtle

      The guest on Reid's show "AM Joy" was Janine Driver, who promotes herself as an "international communications expert" and the owner and president of the Body Language Institute. The segment sparked howls of criticism aimed at Driver, Reid, and the network.
      "So now the slant is that he's physically intimidating too, oh and sexist," said writer and activist Malaika Jabali. "Totally cool, normal interpretation of someone being spontaneously confronted on national TV. It's getting outrageous."
      While both the Warren and Sanders camp have appeared desirous to put the dust-up about what was or wasn't said during a private 2018 meeting behind them, Day—who openly supports Sanders as the better and more progressive candidate—was among those unwilling to disarm so long as the corporate media outlets continue to air such blatant and irrresponsible attacks to their massive audiences.
      "I know there's a big push to move on but if the mainstream media is gonna broadcast this fraudulent garbage," said Day, "then I don't feel particularly compelled to drop it."
      She was hardly alone.
      "MSNBC is a fucking disgrace," said journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept. Greenwald said the use of "bullshit charlatan body language analysis" to call Sanders a liar was "appalling but typical" of the network.

      “He turtles!” LOL! What a dope. But don’t worry there are plenty of dopes on the other side too!

      And Vaccines!

      There are accusations of anti-semitism:

      And just general absurdity:
      Yes, feel the hatred course through your veins..

      They’re so angry, they’re actually figuring out the media is biased!

      Welcome to the party! We have booze, but no paper straws, sorry…

      Read More Add your Comment 0 nhận xét


      © 2012 Học Để ThiBlog tài liệu