Debate for Bolton to Speak
Most probably Smiling Jack Bolton may say
some things which are not wriien
in his book.
Those things may be the clincher!
Most probably Smiling Jack Bolton may say
some things which are not wriien
in his book.
Those things may be the clincher!
Of course there is a cover-up.
What is unimaginable is that these
presumably honorable Senators are in on it.
No witnesses, no evidential documents presented,
what the heck are the US Senators doing.
It’s a shame that they could sponsor this sham of a sideshow.
It is well-known, of course,
that the Senators will not be able to put up
a single witness of their own to help in their cover-up,
even if these were forced to testify,
or coerce,
ala Jewish-Dershowitz
Perhaps that is it! No witness for the Defense.
That is the sum of it.
And the Senators are scared to their whatever
of the truth being shown to their faces.
But you know what,
the Senators can actually bring in any witness they want.
But the scared Senators just cannot do this
for reasons that we know what.
EH?
DA CAPO IN TRIAL GETUP
no witness allowed
or else!
What is good for DA CAPO
is good for everybody!
(make sure we have a list of US Senators, please)
Smiling Jack Bolton
is living up to expectations
in that he will be the game-changer.
My epithet exactly.
Trump’s assessment of Bolton is accurate.
But what Bolton writes is also accurate.
However, it should be noted
that both Bolton and Trump
are vindictive.
Was Bolton fired,
or did he bolt the ranks?
Trimmed proper from head to foot
Prof Alan Dershowitz proclaimed that he is not connected
to the Trump Impeachment Team and afterwards hammered
the House Managers for being against Trump.
Listening to his harangue, I formed my conclusion that I
would not pine to be in his class for the simple reason that
he will not be able to teach me anything about law even if
I ain’t never been schooled in law at no time.
Listen closely now
because this post will be buried amongst the next
6,487 posts.
His favorite topic :the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution
and for a prof who declares that his passion is his love for the country
and its Constitution he failed to declare that a great portion of his
opinion are literally out of time and may not hold true today.
As a result he has promulgated a whole lot of graduates whose opinion
may be out of tune to the times.
The framers of the American Constitution
were attempting to form a republic with a government different from the
Parliamentary form obtained in England.
It can go without saying that the whole bunch of them were commoners,
those with nobility ties being forced to flee to what is now Canada.
The republic being formed has to have arms and a militia to the delight
of the now organized NRA, even if the arms constituted mere muskets,
gunpowder and lead balls.
This is a far cry from what is obtained now—-rpg, javelins, tanks, bombs,
planes and atom bombs.
Therefore, the commoners never envisioned anything like terrorists, tarrifs,
military aid, NATO, UN, blackmail, homicides,
homicides, homosexuals, abortions,
blackmail, bribery, hacking, and foreign interference.
But they did foresaw impeachment and made rules about the matter,
only thing is their vision was limited only at the time of musketry.
This is the point in time where DA trimmed prof delivered his lecture
on Impeachment.
He began with a sermon on the podium
against the House managers about them being ignorant
of his favorite subject : the Constitution of the olden times.
He said that Congress should not be above the law,
proceeding afterwards with items he wanted to alter in the
present procedures of the Constitution.
At this point, well-versed as he is in his beloved Constitution,
he failed to realize that to the Congress belongs the right
to amend the Constitution,
and it is the Congress that makes the laws
to be followed by everybody
including lecturers of outdated Constitutions.
He pointed out wrong interpretations of words
such as misdemeanor, maladministration,
high crimes, and so forth,
but he failed to suggest different words or terms
to replace these.
It is a standing rule for anybody and everybody who profess to
know more on any subject to be able to teach it
that if he is to point out something amiss in anything,
he should be able to suggest or recommend
a replacement and/or a solution to correct it.
He therefore assumed the posture of a mother-in-law on the podium
giving sermons on what is bad without mentioning what is good.
“I shall be short”
That’s what the man said.
I was not sure whether he was referring to his stature
or the length of time he is to harangue because he stayed
on the podium as if he were reluctant to surrender it.
At any rate, I shall cut my post short.
His last comment about the topic “Abuse of power”
was that the quid pro quo involving military aid,
which was legitimately approved by a bi-partisan Congress,
is not impeachable because the “abuse” term
was misinterpreted.
This was his great fumble, and the House Managers will
make a touchdown as a consequence of this.
To be impeachable, the quid pro quo should be committed
with the intention for personal aggrandizement.
Speaking of Intentions, now this was his greatest fumble.
While expounding with an almost vehement effort on the intentions
of the framers of the Constitution,
he all but left out the factor of “intention”
from the rest of his lecture.
This is the most important feature in the Constitution.
In fact it is the soul of the Constitution—the intention, the purpose
by which the republic is formed and organized.
After all, intention actually differentiates
between a First-Degree murder
from a Second-Degree Murder,
personal from political.
INTENTION—before and after the act,
will determine whether Trump
committed an Abuse of Power or not.
One cannot read the mind of Trump as regards his intentions,
however, this can be deduced by his actions
before and after the commission.
Ask the cops, they know.
Don’t ask the Prof, he doesn’t.
I repeat,
the President cannot invoke Executive Privilege
if he has already admitted that he has done something wrong
in his administration.
He has no immunity against any charge related to his
wrongdoing and therefore he should cooperate with
the House who represents the people of the United States.
AS I said, the end does not justify the means.
As expected, Burisma comes into the picture
as if revealing somebody else’s crime justifies one’s own crime.
The Trump defense did not specify Hunter Biden or Joe Biden.
Just Burisma.
It appears that Humter Biden is being paid by Burisma
some excessive amount even with him not having an
idea of what the work is supposed to be.
I say—isn’t this a common practice in the corporations in America?
Directors are paid humongous salaries for doing nothing.
They should have heard of Iacocca by now, haven’t they?
And then comes the preparatory build-up of Bagman Ghouliani.
Isn’t he the one suspected of bribing Siokin for the “material” about
Hunter Biden with the money coming from part of the military aid?
If so, the charge now changes to BRIBERY.
Anyway, what is the fuss all about now?
Joe Biden might not even win the primary( heheheh).
Celebrated impeachment lawyer Ken Starr
may not have any reason to celebrate at all.
In Trump’s defense, he elaborated on the Constitution
and history in maybe the effort to confuse those minions
to decide from the state of bewilderment.
A lot of the principles promulgated in 1876 do not apply now.
This is one effective strategy to use against people who
are not cognizant of what Starr is really talking about.
In this case it would be best to disregard what has been
narrated so far and just use common sense.
For instance, Impeachment may be used as a weapon
IF the guilt or misdemeanor of the defendant is not known.
Trump’s guilt has been widely publicized and that he was
actually caught red-handed.
So the Trial is actually a Check on Trump
and not a weapon against Trump.
Impeachment, in such a case as this,
becomes part and parcel
of the System of Checks and balances.
Ken Starr mistakes this trial for the Impeachment of the Trump
as a weapon by the Democrats for use in the next elections.
No, he should have the common sense to add
that if the President admits he made a misdemeanor,
then he should be punished.
Plainly taken straight from the noggin.
He also dealt with the no response given to the subpoenas
saying that these should be passed thru the Courts.
He dealt with this subject in a miniature time frame,
without discussing what check and balance item
in the Constitution would refer to the judges
who withhold their decisions for months at an end.
Clearly,
and paraphrasing Starr,
the System of Checks and Balances
refer only to the relations between
the Executive Branch and Congress.
The Judicial Branch rules over all.
Boy, do the Americans ever need a Judge Roy Bean now,
(off the bat)
Even though they are not part of Trump’s Defense,
they will be allowed to speak at the Impeachment Trial.
One of them is the two-faced professor Alan D.
He will say:
“I did not say that I was wrong before
I am only saying that
now I am more correct”
BRIBERY
in capital letters
runs the world.
It may appear in different forms,
each form has one thing in common—
a favor for a favor, one thing for another,
money for whatever,
something back for a donation,
a coupon, a rebate, allowance,
passes, entrance, exits,
even contributions for a political campaign,
the last one being the most common in
politics for gaining influence.
I heard this word as a passing remark,
and softly at this,
from Grandma Pelosi,
referring to the reason for
the impeachment inquiry.
After more thinking I realized what is inferred.
Two Plus Two equals—-
now gives me that sickly feeling
that what is being held back from the public
is the bribery committed by Trump
and completed by Bagman Ghouliani.
Proof of this evil deed may be in the documents
being held back by Trump.
Bribery may then turn into,
or be combined,
to its concomitant
cousin : BLACKMAIL.
Also in capital letters.
This being so,
even witnesses who may know of this evil act
may be reluctant to speak due to fear and security.
Whom of these may be vulnerable?
Those who may have received Trump’s favors or
contributions to help them get elected or employed.
(quid pro quo to Siokin)
A brief two-hour defense for Trump is initiated
in an effort which did a strut instead of a dash.
It does give the appearance of being calm and confident.
However,
while the lawyers seem to be as a unified, focused team,
there are gaps in their presentation.
I am referring to the data presented.
I can see that they are not inept as I said before.
They are either misinformed or totally uninformed.
This could provide the impression that they have not
even read nor seen the documents that the Managers
asked for, and that these documents are being hidden
even from the lawyers that defend Trump
(Standard mafia operandi)
Sad story it is,
but these lawyers would appear to be sad sacks
in the eyes of the public.
A wrong vote may get a Senator’s head on a spike,
brown, blonde, or black-haired,
Viking-style.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
Well, there is one way to prove
that this will not happen.
Counsel, Jay Settoolow,
hopes to shift the blame from his patron.
Da Capo Trump
to Hunter Biden
and/or Obama’s administration.
Naïve and childish, isn’t it?
Sort of saying that Trump’s fingers
were caught dipping in the cookie jar
because he wants to throw away the bad cookies.
Trump was the one caught dipping, of course,
and not Hunter Biden.
It should be noted that it was Jay Settoolow
who advised Da Capo Trump to order a no cooperation
with the House of Representatives,
using the Executive Privelege,
causing the latter to bring down the Article 2
of the Impeachment.
To whom could Jay Settoolow shift the blame now?
(The End Does Not Justify The Means)
House Managers seals their case
so tight that the Counsel for Trump may find it
extremely difficult to find a defense.
It is expected that their defense will
again be ridiculously off the mark,
exhibiting both their ineptitude
and their desperation.
(Up the House Managers!
I will vote for them
and I ain’t even American)
Detailed narrative on Ukraine
is discussed.
The “material” that Trump boasts to have
is most probably the dope on Biden
that the Bagman Ghouliani secured
from his very special, extraordinary trip
to the Ukraine region.
Something is afoot whenever my hyperactive brain
starts to hurt.
So I turn to my reliable crystal ball to try to alleviate
the headache.
What comes up is an incredible fiction.
Remember what I told you about my next post being fiction?
Well, this should augment it.
But I warn you that I emphasize the fiction ala Scorsese as
regards this post.
So you may choose to believe it or not
But I would rather that you do not believe it!!!!
These events strike me as odd and good—
Russia’s gas pipeline went through Turkey
without a peep nor a sanction from Trump.
A long truce on the Russia-Ukraine front has been effected,
eliminating the need for the Javelin aid to Zelenesky,
who may now divert the unused funds for something else.
Also, more funds to the aid have still to be used and
Zelenesky may be able to secure them.
Ukraine will not set up some long-range missiles,
inherited from Khruschev,
to point to Russia.
Putin reorganizes the Russian government in such a way
as impeachment procedures upon himself cannot be started.
Zelenesky is now more amenable to Trump’s requests,
more notable is that he is to be silent when required.
The “material” may have included the reason for the non-prosecution
of the corrupt officials in Ukraine’s government
including Siokin accepted bribes for refraining to prosecute.
Siokin may have attempted to bribe Biden’s son
but Biden had him legitimately removed.
Biden’s son may have been helpful
in the election of Zelenesky.
In the Impeachment Trial of Trump,
When the Republican Senators
ask for Biden as a witness,
and also ask for this “material” as evidence,
the Democrats
should ask for Siokin and Zelenesky as witnesses
to validate the “material”
And if Trump’s counsel mention
that the material was in Trump’s hands,
then they should ask for Trump as a witness.
In fact, the Democrats should ask for Trump as a witness
even before Trump’s counsel mention his name.
But again I warn my readers—
this is merely a product of my hyperactive imagination,
er, my crystal ball,
and I would rather you do not consider
this as gospel.
(some Democrats must also contact Zelenesky ahead)
Adam Schiff,
Lead House Impeachment Manager,
puts out one Daniel-Webster of a presentation.
(OOOPS! Sorry about the slack
When you gotta go
you gotta go!)
This is the game changer,
Nay,
this is a shocker
if he talks about the deal.
IF I am correct.
Think about it this way…..
This next post, treat it as fiction, initially.
On second thought,
There is already a clamor to subpoena Bolton.
So my Scorsese type fiction I plan to post will be aborted.
Instead, I will ask the questions which will also keep
your minds reeling.
Now, did Smiling Jack Bolton refer to the Ukrainian caper
as a drug deal because Money will be exchanged for the
“dope” on Biden?
If so, is this money aside from the $391 million military aid
to Ukraine?
Will this be in Ukrainian currency handed to ZE at that time
when he is inspecting his troops in the field?
Who is the bagman?
Who will donate the money?
Was the “dope” on Biden secured?
Either Bolton or that Italian bagman would have the answers?
Outvoted but not outmaneuvered
the House Managers manage to present to the public
the gist of their main points on the impeachment.
(Excellent preparation!)
The Prof,
still professing that he is not part
of Trump’s defense team,
will expound on the point that Trump’s actions
were not impeachable,
referring to the logic of the Framers of the Constitution.
That may be, but it should be pointed out
that the framers of the Constitution had little or no idea
of what the country would bw subjcted to
in the future.
Such thing like homicides, homosexual tendencies,
abortions, nuclear weapons, mercenaries, foreign aids, and such,
were not in consideration when the Constitution
was debated upon.
The Prof will then argue
that what is termed as Abuse of Power
is actually a form of maladministration due to poor judgement
and therefore it is not a crime and is not impeachable.
In so doing, the Prof will argue that impeachment will be determined
by the gravity of the President’s act,
and not the cause for the act.
To distinguish therefore
between maladministration and abuse of power,
I propose to present this case as an example.
Listen well,
because even though this case is not as serious
as the act by which the Abuse of Power article is based on,
this case is presented
to compare and contrast between abuse of power
and mere maladministration.
Ergo……
If a father maltreats his children with beatings.
scoldings, withholding subsistence benefits, and so forth,
these may be considered as mere acts of bad parenting
which should be ignored and left unpunished because
upon him is vested the sole authority
and responsibility to fend for his children.
However,
if this father forces sex upon his children,
this will be considered as abuse of authority.
or simply abuse of power,
because this authority,
vested solely upon himself,
has been taken advantage of,
and his act has been done in excess of
what his authority dictates.
The father has made a quid pro quo.
or an implicit sex for sustenance,
ABUSE means literally over and above expectations.
Get it?
Pablito Calvo
played the role of Marcelino in the screen adaptation of “The Miracle of Marcelino” byJose Ma. Sanchez Silva.
This is the story of a baby who was found in front of the gates of a monastery. The monks reared him up after nobody in town would like to accept him as an orphan.
When he was six years old, his curiosity led him to the attic to see the Crucified Christ. Later on Marcelino brought this man on the cross some food and wine which were of course pilfered from the monastery kitchen.
To make the story short, the man on the cross granted Marcelino’s wish which was to see his mother. And right from the very eyes of the eavesdropping monks, the man on the cross sent Marcelino to heaven.
The Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump
has been scheduled for next week.
This implies that there will be no war against Iran.
If you understand what I mean.
Anyhow Trump chose for his defense
a bunch of knowledgeable but popular
people enough to make a good TV show.
This people will make it appear
that the partiality of the Republicans
are actually a show of impartiality.
This by explaining that Trump has merely done
a bad administrative decision instead of an abuse of power
which makes his actions unimpeachable.
References will be made on the conditions obtaining
at the time of the framers of the Constitution
in circa 1776.
(Yuch)