RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Impeaching Trump

Romney clearly has a vendetta against Trump. I think Romney did it with the arrogance that he could pull this off and still recover within 6 years and get re-elected. He won't. The blowback was way beyond what he expected. Laura Ingraham had an excellent opening editorial on it tonight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i1tUY7Z-bI

If Romney had supported Trump initially, and now he was breaking away to "do the right thing" I'd believe it. But Romney has shived Trump in the back at every turn for 4 years.
Even after Trump interviewed him for a cabinet position!
Even after Trump, at Romney's request, flew to Utah to campaign for his Senate election! Right after winning, Romney stabbed him in the back. AGAIN.
I'm a guy who supported Romney strongly in 2012, and felt like he was a moderate who could bring both sides together. But I've seen with both Romney and McCain that no matter how moderate, Dems will demonize even the most moderate and bipartisan Republican. Right wing! Racist! Warmonger!! Evil white guy! White Privelege! Crazy! Likewise W. Bush. Likewise Trump. Any Republican president or candidate will get the same treatment. It's not just Trump. And on top of that, Romney has demonstrated his chameleonlike lack of principle. And vindictiveness toward Trump.

And once Romney has outlived his usefuness as a weapon against Trump, House/Senate Democrats and the liberal media will again turn on Romney. It will be a short honeymoon.

Lol, we should be like you and demonize most of the opposition and anybody like Romney that actually voted his conscience? I saw that more than a few republicans actually agree with the democrats in the House about Trump being guilty but than voted to block evidence and than to acquit Trump. And they are quiet today as he had his petty vindictive meltdown at the bipartisan prayer meeting.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who made waves as a witness during the Trump impeachment proceedings, was fired Friday by the National Security Council and escorted off the White House grounds, Fox News has confirmed.
Vindman was on detail to the National Security Council from the Department of Defense, and it is expected he will return there. It comes just two days after President Trump was acquitted in the Senate on the impeachment charges brought by the House last year over his dealings with Ukraine.


GORDON SONDLAND RECALLED AS AMBASSADOR TO EU AFTER IMPEACHMENT TESTIMONY


In a lengthy statement, Vindman’s attorney, David Pressman, confirmed that Vindman had been escorted out of the White House on Friday.
“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House,” Pressman said. “LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth. His honor, his commitment to right, frightened the powerful.”

Also Friday, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who testified about Trump’s Ukraine dealings during the House impeachment hearings, said Friday that he had been recalled from that position.
“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States ambassador to the European Union," Sondland said.

A senior administration official also told Fox News that Vindman’s twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman has also left the National Security Council. Yevgeny Vindman was assigned to the office that vetted publications like former national security adviser John Bolton’s book – though he has said he was not involved in the vetting of the Bolton manuscript.

The news comes after reports that the White House was weighing options to dismiss Vindman from the NSC in an effort to shrink its foreign policy bureaucracy. Bloomberg reported Thursday that the White House planned to frame Vindman’s exit as part of an NSC staff downsizing, not retaliation.

Trump, when asked about the reports Friday, told reporters that he was "not happy with him."
"You think I'm supposed to be happy with him? I'm not," Trump said, adding that a decision would be made soon.

VINDMAN DOWNPLAYS MISSING BURISMA REFERENCE IN TRUMP CALL SUMMARY: 'NOT A SIGNIFICANT OMISSION'

by John Solomon, The Hill


When the final chapter of the Russia collusion caper is written, it is likely two seminal documents the FBI used to justify investigating Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign will turn out to be bunk.

And the behavior of FBI agents and federal prosecutors who promoted that faulty evidence may disturb us more than we now know.

The first, the Christopher Steele dossier, has received enormous attention. And the more scrutiny it receives, the more its truthfulness wanes. Its credibility has declined so much that many now openly question how the FBI used it to support a surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign in October 2016.
At its best, the Steele dossier is an “unverified and salacious” political research memo funded by Trump’s Democratic rivals. At worst, it may be Russian disinformation worthy of the “garbage” label given it by esteemed reporter Bob Woodward.

The second document, known as the “black cash ledger,” remarkably has escaped the same scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.

In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017 for bank records to prove he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.

There’s just one problem: The FBI’s public reliance on the ledger came months after the feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn’t be trusted and likely was a fake, according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.
For example, Ukraine’s top anticorruption prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnytsky, told me he warned the U.S. State Department’s law enforcement liaison and multiple FBI agents in late summer 2016 that Ukrainian authorities who recovered the ledger believed it likely was a fraud.

“It was not to be considered a document of Manafort. It was not authenticated. And at that time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody,” Kholodnytsky said, recalling what he told FBI agents.
Likewise, Manafort’s Ukrainian business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, a regular informer for the State Department, told the U.S. government almost immediately after The New York Times wrote about the ledger in August 2016 that the document probably was fake.

Manafort “could not have possibly taken large amounts of cash across three borders. It was always a different arrangement — payments were in wire transfers to his companies, which is not a violation,” Kilimnik wrote in an email to a senior U.S. official on Aug. 22, 2016.
He added: “I have some questions about this black cash stuff, because those published records do not make sense. The timeframe doesn’t match anything related to payments made to Manafort. … It does not match my records. All fees Manafort got were wires, not cash.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team and the FBI were given copies of Kilimnik’s warning, according to three sources familiar with the documents.
Submitting knowingly false or suspect evidence — whether historical or to support probable cause — in a federal court proceeding violates FBI rules and can be a crime under certain circumstances. “To establish probable cause, the affiant [the agent or lawyer who files an affidavit?] must demonstrate a basis for knowledge and belief that the facts are true,” the FBI operating manual states.
But with Manafort, the FBI and Mueller’s office did not cite the actual ledger — which would require agents to discuss their assessment of the evidence — and instead cited media reports about it. The feds assisted on one of those stories as sources.

For example, agents mentioned the ledger in an affidavit supporting a July 2017 search warrant for Manafort’s house, citing it as one of the reasons the FBI resurrected the criminal case against Manafort.
“On August 19, 2016, after public reports regarding connections between Manafort, Ukraine and Russia — including an alleged ‘black ledger’ of off-the-book payments from the Party of Regions to Manafort — Manafort left his post as chairman of the Trump Campaign,” the July 25, 2017, FBI agent’s affidavit stated.

Three months later, the FBI went further in arguing probable cause for a search warrant for Manafort’s bank records, citing a specific article about the ledger as evidence Manafort was paid to perform U.S. lobbying work for the Ukrainians.
“The April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI [Manafort’s company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the 'black ledger,' ” an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit.

There are two glaring problems with that assertion.

First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller’s deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.
An FBI record of the April 11, 2017, meeting declared that the AP reporters "were advised that they appeared to have a good understanding of Manafort’s business dealings" in Ukraine.
So, essentially, the FBI cited a leak that the government had facilitated and then used it to support the black ledger evidence, even though it had been clearly warned about the document.

Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.

During the 2014 investigation, Manafort and his partner Richard Gates voluntarily identified for FBI agents tens of millions of dollars they received from Ukrainian and Russian sources and the shell companies and banks that wired the money. “Gates stated that the amounts they received would match the amounts they invoiced for services. Gates added they were always paid late, and in tranches,” FBI memos I obtained show.

Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. “They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence,” he said.
“It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys’ bar,” he added.

Former FBI intelligence chief Kevin Brock was less critical. He said mentioning the ledger in an affidavit for its historical relationship to Manafort’s firing and the start of the investigation might be defensible, but any effort to use the ledger to support probable cause would be “puzzling” since it clearly was not needed to strengthen either affidavit and only risked tainting the warrant. He said it could raise questions about why the special counsel believed it necessary to refer to the ledger in the probable cause narrative.

In the end, the best proof that the FBI knew the black ledger was a sham is that prosecutors never introduced it to jurors in Manafort’s trial.

Rep. Mark Meadows, a senior Republican on the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, told me Wednesday night he is asking the Justice Department inspector general to investigate the FBI and prosecutors' handling of the Manafort warrants, including any media leaks and evidence that the government knew the black ledger was potentially unreliable or suspect evidence.

The question of whether the Mueller team should have used the ledger in search warrant affidavits before that is for the courts to decide.
But the public has a substantial interest in questioning whether, more broadly, the FBI should have sustained a Trump-Russia collusion investigation for more than two years based on the suspect Steele dossier and black ledger.

Understandably, there isn’t much public sympathy for foreign lobbyists such as Manafort. But the FBI and prosecutors should be required to play by the rules and use solid evidence when making its cases.

It does not appear to have been the prevailing practice in the Russia collusion investigation. And that should trouble us all.
______________________

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports.

VINDMAN FIRED, ESCORTED OUT OF WHITE HOUSE AFTER TRUMP ACQUITTAL




Good. Vindman is not a "soldier" as his lawyer fronts, he's a backstabbing liberal zealot who acted as a mole in the NSC. In House hearings, Vindman openly said he leaked documents, although he would not disclose who he leaked them to.
If it were a Republican serving in Obama's White House NSC, leaking and undermining Obama, then Obama would similarly be perfectly within his rights to fire someone he could not trust. Wherever Vindman is reassigned to the military, I hope it is under an officer who hates his guts for his dissloyalty, and makes his new assignment a living hell.

Unlike you, I've cited specific actions and policies that make me oppose Romney and others, usually sourced and linked. I don't just hate someone blindly, I oppose them because they are proven to be bad for the country.

And the media's kneejerk gushing over Romney, because he bashes Trump and his fellow Republicans, is absolute fact as well. Compaare with past treatment of John McCain, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, ANY REPUBLICAN who previously was demonized, the moment they turn on Trump or other Republicans, the liberal media and Democrats instantly sing their praises. Until, of course, they outlive their usefulness and behave like Republicans again. At that moment Dems and the media snap back to portraying them as evil.

Vindman is an actual hero who has risked his life and has been injured for this country. But this is a WH that considers Rush Limbaugh a true hero. What a sewer

November 4, 2019



A retired Army officer who worked with Democrat “star witness” Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims Vindman “really talked up” President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in front of Russian military officers.

In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman said that he “verbally reprimanded” Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for himself. “Do not let the uniform fool you,” Hickman wrote. “He is a political activist in uniform.”



Hickman, 52, says he’s a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.

The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers “uncomfortable.” For example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans “rednecks”—a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a big laugh at America’s expense.

Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the House Intelligence Committee and testified that he’d had “concerns” about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman’s testimony rested on his negative opinions of the call, rather than any new facts about the call.

Vindman’s former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold water on Vindman’s claims in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn’t have concerns that “anything illegal was discussed” in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.


“COMPLETELY BEYOND REPROACH”


Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman “disobeyed a direct order from the commander-in-chief, his boss,” made his testimony “about his foreign policy opinions versus facts,” and “wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement” against the president.

“Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple heart, and completely beyond reproach,” Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness and another journalist. “Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this information. I couldn’t go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the Army, as they’re backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,” he added.

According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met Vindman’s twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.

“I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in Grafenwoher,” Hickman wrote on Twitter. “He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe). He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.”

Hickman provided American Greatness with a picture of himself and his wife while he was on vacation in Venice during that time period.


He noted that he and Vindman had “interacted on several different occasions throughout the planning cycle, but it was during the actual execution of the exercise that we had an issue relevant to his recent testimony.


LAUGHING AT AMERICANS' EXPENSE


Hickman said he had pretty much forgotten about Vindman until recently.

“When I saw him, and understood what he was trying to accomplish, I knew immediately he was involved in this mess as a partisan Democrat,” Hickman said in his statement.

He explained on Twitter that Vindman, who was a major in 2013, sat in on the US-Russian exercises that were conducted in “Virtual Battle Simulations 2 (VBS2) classrooms simulation.”

According to Hickman, Vindman spoke with “U.S. and Russian Soldiers, as well as the young officers and GS employees about America, Russia, and Obama.”

Hickman’s Oct. 31 tweets continue below in paragraph form for easier reading:


He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of (sic) uncomfortable.

He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS [civil service]employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed.

One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American’s falsely thinking they’re exceptional, when he said, “He [Obama] is working on that now.” And he said it w/a snide ‘I know a secret’ look on his face. I honestly don’t know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say.

Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama’s plan, etc., I’d had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I’ll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself.

The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as [2013]. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you…he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!🇺🇸

Thomas Lasch, Hickman’s boss at the time, corroborated his story on Twitter.

“Jim, I remember exercise ATLAS VISION and this incident. I was your Boss at the time and was satisfied when you told me that you ‘took care of it’ (meaning then MAJ Vindman’s disparaging comments about the U.S. to the Russians ) and I just put things together this past week,” Lasch tweeted.
— Thomas Lasch (@ThomasLasch1) November 2, 2019

Lasch is a highly respected simulation strategist at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr, Germany where he is responsible for the “Live Virtual Constructive and Gaming simulation program for all U.S. Forces in Europe.”

Lasch vouched for Hickman in a second tweet: “Everyone on this thread should know that Jim Hickman’s patriotism and honesty is unparalleled. He is one of my personal heroes.” He added: “This is not about Trump! This is about an officer [LTC Vindman] that is disloyal to the United States of America.”

American Greatness was able to reach Lasch through his LinkedIn account. He verified that the recently established Twitter account in his name vouching for Hickman was indeed his.
“Yes this is my LinkedIn account. It is really me. And the Twitter account is mine as well,” Lasch said.

In his statement, Hickman explained why Lasch remembered the incident with Vindman: “I did question his patriotism to our nation, and the lack of respect given to Americans in general. I was indeed furious and that’s most likely why my boss Tom Lasch remembers it so clearly.”

“I corrected him solely as a superior officer witnessing a junior officer doing something wrong,” Hickman explained. “We as officers are not supposed to talk about our political leanings, especially in front of subordinates, and never are we to talk down about Americans and our culture.”

Hickman further explained to American Greatness that Vindman spoke favorably of the United Nations, and appeared contemptuous of Americans who didn’t appreciate the U.N. Vindman, Hickman said, believed that “the U.N. should have broader powers” and “talked about how the American people weren’t worldly.”

He noted that Vindman actually used the word “globalism” during the conversation and “talked about American culture versus European culture,” unfavorably, essentially suggesting that “the U.S. has no culture.”

Hickman also told American Greatness that Vindman talked about “Obama changing America” and that it reminded him of Obama’s infamous “Fundamentally transforming America” speech of October 2008.

The former officer stressed that he was not seeking recognition or praise but instead, “to just get the facts and truth out that are relevant to the current situation.”

Hickman said in his statement that he began his Army career in military intelligence and was commissioned in 1996 as a field artillery officer.

He retired from the service in 2017 and now resides near Tampa, Florida.

Trump was impeached because of his own actions. Romney is guilty of looking at Trump’s actions and instead of helping him block evidence and shield his corruption. Romney wasn’t the lone republican saying Trump’s actions were wrong btw. Trump is still attacking McCain who’s been dead a while now. It’s ridiculous to think that Romney doesn’t know he committed political suicide. Trump’s pettiness and the gop’s devotion to him insures that. Even when Trump leaves you guys bankrupted and fucked you will still hate Romney for being the friend who told you Trump was pos.

Actually Clinton was acquitted like Trump was in the impeachment trial. We didn’t celebrate it and pretend he didn’t lie under oath over what you would call a process crime. He apologized while Trump rages and plots more revenge and more investigations on his political foes. Total morally bankrupt and your party fuels it to hold onto power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors". The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee.[1]

On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868), when the House formally adopted two articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication; two other articles were considered, but were rejected.[a] A trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office—in this instance 67. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while 50 voted for acquittal.[3] Clinton remained in office for the remainder of his second term.[4]

Lamar Jackson while voting to block evidence with most of the republican majority explained his vote to acquit this way... “There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine,” Alexander said in a statement. “There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.'”

Other republicans also went that route noting Trump’s wrongdoing. They however voted to block witnesses and documents unlike Romney.

And because republicans used their majority to help Trump’s obstruction of witnesses it really was a sham trial and acquittal. After the John Bolton leaks, it’s very apparent how much of a sham it was.

I actually agree with you on Biden imploding and I don’t think it’s anything to do with Trump trying to investigate him. Or an announcement of an investigation to be precise. That of course doesn’t change what Trump did. Those documents and testimony can’t be blocked forever.

I’m sure Trump will be having his party and JOD investigating all his old enemies and whoever else might be the new political rival for 2020. Republicans have actually just been permanently investigating Hillary so nothing really new there. But you can bet democrats will be working to get that Bolton testimony and other testimony and documents. Trump’s corruption will just drip out in bits as courts eventually force him to comply.

And because republicans used their majority to help Trump’s obstruction of witnesses it really was a sham trial and acquittal. After the John Bolton leaks, it’s very apparent how much of a sham it was.

As Mitch McConnell said in a Senate floor statement right after the Senate acquittal, Democrats' clear plan was to force the Senate to call witnesses THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T AND WOULDN'T for the calculated purpose of blaming the Senate for the failed case the House Democrats didn't make, and to use prolonged Senate hearings with no evidence to smear Senate Republicans and win a Democrat Senate majority in the Nov 2020 election.
House Democrats knew they were NEVER NEVER NEVER going to impeach and remove Trump, but Democrats calculated kicking it to the Senate for long hearings with no evidence as a way for Dems to win the Senate.
But Senate Republicans cleverly didn't take the bait. And now it's over.

Bolton’s willing to testify, republicans just don’t want him to for obvious reasons. Hide, obstruct, accuse and perpetual investigation is your party. It’s laughable that you even spout your bs after the gop blocked Bolton’s testimony.

Asked and answered:


Trump hits highest Gallup approval rating of his presidency

The House asked Bolton to testify before it got to the Senate and before the book leak. He refused as did Moldavey and others. Bolton did agree to testify for the Senate. It’s very clear why Moscow Mitch and stooges helped Trump to block Bolton’s testimony.

It might take a while longer now going through the courts to get the evidence and testimony but you have to know it’s going to happen.

Mark Levin: Should President Trump be impeached?

Alan Dershowitz: It would be unconstitutional for President Trump to be impeached on the current record. It would be an utter abuse of the power of Congress. The Constitution sets out four criteria for impeaching a president. Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Unless one of those criteria is met, Congress does not have the authority to impeach, and if they do, their impeachment would be void. Alexander Hamilton said any act of Congress that is inconsistent with the Constitution is void. Now, Congress maybe can get away with impeaching because there won't be judicial review. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be violating their oath of office. They would be abusing their power if they impeached President Trump on this record.

Mark Levin: So, Professor Dershowitz, in the end now, what is your greatest concern?

Alan Dershowitz: The death of civil liberties, the diminution of due process, the fact that the hard left, particularly people who have causes, have turned against fundamental liberty. You know, it was Eric Hoffa, the one said “every cause starts as a movement, that it becomes a business. Ultimately, it degenerates into a racket.” And I'm trying to protect the #MeToo movement from becoming a racket. And I want to protect due process. That's why I'm standing up for President Trump's rights. I think we live in an age where the end justifies the means. And if you're a radical feminist, you know, if somebody is accused, he must be guilty. If you're a radical Democrat, you know, if he's President Trump, he must be guilty. And so we have to fight to preserve our basic due process and our basic and fundamental concern for free speech.

And by the way, it's Mick Mulvaney, not Muldavey.

The whole point was for House Democrats to trick the Senate into prolonged hearings. There was nothing to find by the House, so they rushed it through and kicked it to the Republican-majority Senate, and tried to trick the Republicans into months-long hearings where nothing will be found, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND!
It was a trick to blame the Republican Senate for their own Democrat-House failure.
And if the Republicans call Bolton and other witnesses, that just prolongs it, there's no evidence to find. And when nothing is found, Democrats just allege that Republicans shortened the hearings before anything could be found, whether the Republicans concede to 100 witnesses, 1,000 witnesses or 100,000 witnesses! The Democrat response to no evidence will always be Republicans are suppressing the truth, we need to see more witnesses. Again, a ploy to blame the Republican Senate for the House Dems' own failure, so they can use that lying narrative to gaain a Senate Democrat majority.

But Republicans wouldn't play that game, and it's over.

And a majority of Americans are glad it's over.

Despite your lying propaganda.

Wow, I did not know he’s the most respected mind in the country. When did that happen? And Bolton and Romney are not good anymore, lol. Your true principles are abundantly clear.

This fairy tale you’re trying to push is false based on the facts WB.

The House tried to get Bolton and others to testify but they refused. Bolton did say he would testify for the senate.

After the leaks from his book it’s laughable that you even try to say there is nothing there.

This was the first impeachment trial where the President tried to block all the witnesses and documents.

This was also the first one where someone from the same party crossed over to vote to remove a president from their party. I feel bad for Romney as Trump and his supporters will make him pay for the rest of his life for putting country before party.

Actually republicans were allowed to ask witnesses questions.

The transcripts from the House hearings show republicans asking almost as many questions as the democrats on the panels involved.

And remember Trump was and is still trying to block any and all witnesses and documents.

I think Bolton wanted the House to go to the courts first to get his testimony but that could have taken years.

As repeated many times now, Bolton did offer to testify if the Senate asked him [to]. Given the leak I suspect Bolton’s testimony will be much like the others that were willing to testify under oath when we finally get it. Unlike the story being told by those who don’t want to testify under oath.

In a selective narrow partial truth, you can lyingly allege that. But the mere fact that Republicans were provided with traanscripts WEEKS AFTER the closed-room SCIF hearings puts the lie to what you are trying to allege.
...