Archive for January, 2020

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!



Day 2 Questions











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.



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)

Questions Day 1













John Bolton

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?

Da Prof Fumbles

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.


Executive Privelege

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.

Justifying The Misdemeanor

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).

Common Sense

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.


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)

Two-Faced Lecturers


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”




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)

Trump’s Lawyers Opening Arguments

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.


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.


Head On A Spike

A wrong vote may get a Senator’s head on a spike,

brown, blonde, or black-haired,


The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Well, there is one way to prove

that this will not happen.


Shifting The Blame

  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)

Adam “Webster” Schiff




Cementing The Case

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)



Democrats Continue Arguments

Detailed narrative on Ukraine

is discussed.




The Dope


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

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!)



John Boltons “Drug Deal”


This is the game changer,


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?


Impeachment Trial of Trump

Outvoted but not outmaneuvered

the House Managers manage to present to the public

the gist of their main points on the impeachment.

(Excellent preparation!)











Return of Don Camillo



Abuse Of Power




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.


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.


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?


Marcelino Pan Y Vino


Pablito Calvo

 played the role of Marcelino in the screen adaptation of “The Miracle of MarcelinobyJose 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.

San Marcelino Pan Y Vino



Impeachment Trial Scheduled

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.