Thursday, January 30, 2020

Live from Washington DC it's.......The Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago's Impeachment Special Part Three: Bolton and the Debate Stage

As I type this the second day of what's called the debate stage of the impeachment trial will happen later today.  However, within the past few days the John Bolton book revelations have seem to shock a lot of people, leading to a nearly week long battle over whether he should be called as a witness.  Repubs and the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago's legal team have claimed that since the House didn't call Bolton that he wouldn't provide anything new.  Of course, they overlook that the House tried to subpoena him and it was blocked by the Mad Fuhrer's claim of executive privilege (just like when they tried to call other witnesses with first hand knowledge).   But why is he wanted now?

According to news reports an excerpt form Bolton memoir leaked that claimed in his dealing with electoral vote winner Donny any talk of Ukraine has less to do with corruption and pretty much everything to do with Joe Biden and his son.  Basically, if rue, this is first hand evidence of quid pro quo and what some would consider a slam dunk.

So how are the Repubs handling it?  On their media outlets they're attacking Bolton, a hardcore neocon who almost has blood lust for war anywhere - but especially the middle East, and calling him a tool of the Democrats.  The Mad Fuhrer himself has tweeted that Bolton is a liar (especially rich given that electoral vote winner Donny has been caught lying while in office well over ten thousands times).  And his legal team are saying that Bolton would offer nothing new to the trial (even though his evidence would flesh things out).

As for the debate question and answer period so far?  Most of it has been trying to reiterate what had been said in the opening argument with the House manager trying to state the case for why witnesses are needed and the Mad Fuhrer of Mar-A-Lago's legal team spouting the usual dog whistle talking points about how this is a hoax, the Dems are trying to invalidate the 2016 election, and that - even if electoral vote winner Donny did something wrong - what he did wasn't impeachable. 

Then there's the Alan Dershowitz argument that anything a President does isn't impeachable if he thinks his re-election is in the public interest.  Obviously this isn't true as accepting foreign help to try and win an election is illegal regardless of who does it but they're still trying to tell people this is true.

Still, the best question of the night went to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont  who asked this to House managers:

 "Given the media has documented President Trump’s thousands of lies while in office - more than 16,200 as of Jan. 20 - why should we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility?”

That is what all of us, both elected officials and us voters should remember time and time again between now and the elections in November. 

No comments: