Title: Indicted Oligarch Firtash praises Manafort, says Trump has third-grade smarts Source:
Daily Beast via Kyiv Post URL Source:https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-po ... mp-has-third-grade-smarts.html Published:Mar 19, 2019 Author:Betsy Swan Post Date:2019-12-08 14:11:55 by Judas Goat Keywords:Useful Idiot Trump Views:4660 Comments:30
An indicted Ukrainian oligarch who faces years in an American prison joked about President Donald Trump’s intellect and distanced himself from Paul Manafort’s business dealings in an exclusive, wide-ranging interview with The Daily Beast at his palatial corporate offices in Vienna.
Ah, yes. I remember now. Flirtash is your mother and Elton Jane is your father.
From Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial:
2256. In the Belknap trial objection was successfully made to an opinion of a subordinate officer as to evidence of the character of respondent’s administration.—On July 12, 1876,1 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, Nelson H. Davis, Inspector General of the Army, was examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, having ascertained that witness had been in the Army during respondent’s entire administration and had been holding constant official relations with him, asked:
From all you know of the subject, and from all you know of General Belknap, I ask you what has been the general character of his administration of the War Department?
Mr. Manager George A. Jenks at once objected:
The objection I make to that is that a witness must testify to character instead of to the specific acts of this man, or general acts. He must know what has been said by those who are familiar with his administration in that office, instead of how has he done the business.
Mr. Manager George F. Hoar said:
We understand also that it should be the opposite of the particular offense charged. If a man is charged with adultery, his reputation for chastity; if he is charged with perjury, his reputation for veracity. We suppose the question should be, ‘‘What is the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity?’’ * * * We do not understand that it is competent to prove by a subordinate officer in the Army, as an expert, the general character of the administration of a great officer of state. There is no such thing as an expert in such an administration. We object to the question unless it is limited to the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity.
Ah, yes. I remember now. Flirtash is your mother and Elton Jane is your father.
I think your last post was directed at peromischievous, not me.
In other news, do you expect that Nadler or Schiff will be the point man of the House managers and act as chief prosecutor in the Senate?
Or do you think this will all fizzle due to Pelosi deliberately scuttling the vote in the House to miss impeachment by a single vote?
I think Pelosi will arrange for impeachment to fail in the House.
I see no way for Pelosi to hope that they will reach the 2/3 of present senators to vote for impeachment. Abstentions for senators present are counted as no votes; only a senator's absence from the chamber will help lower the number of required votes.
If Pelosi were willing to try to trade her House majority for enough Senate seats to prevent Trump from appointing another Supreme without Dem consent, it could make some strategic sense. But that seems like a long and convoluted scheme even for Pelosi. The best outcome of such a scheme would likely be to defeat Collins in Maine and see Jones in AL defeated as well, a tie. I don't see many other GOP Senate seats within Dems' reach with a strong economy and full employment.
It is a long steep hill to climb to get 67 votes to convict in the Senate, only to elevate a President Pence into office in a good position to serve 8+ years as president. Removing Trump now would be the GOP's best chance to hold the WH for 12 years straight and remake the Court entirely by replacing both RBG and Breyer. Pelosi knows this as does Schumer. So what is their game? Just a little election year impeachment drama for the kiddies but without any serious intent of actually removing Trump? It seems that way to me.
I see no way for Pelosi to hope that they will reach the 2/3 of present senators to vote for impeachment.
That's not her intent. Her intent is to impeach, period, to satisfy the Trump haters and to influence the 2020 election. And as retaliation for Clinton and as insurance against future impeachment of a Democrat (It's payback for Trump!).
"Or do you think this will all fizzle due to Pelosi deliberately scuttling the vote in the House to miss impeachment by a single vote?"
Nah. That would leave all the yea voters hung out to dry -- the worst of both worlds. She'll simply say the votes aren't there and ask for censure instead.
If this goes to the Senate and all hearsay testimony is excluded -- as it should be -- the Democrats have nothing. Literally. What they do have is a series of events that they have interpreted as impeachable offenses.
Nah. That would leave all the yea voters hung out to dry -- the worst of both worlds. She'll simply say the votes aren't there and ask for censure instead.
That may be her plan all along, go for impeachment while ignoring all the impeachment precedents (as GOP House members have accused) and then go for censure at the last minute.
If this goes to the Senate and all hearsay testimony is excluded -- as it should be -- the Democrats have nothing. Literally. What they do have is a series of events that they have interpreted as impeachable offenses.
The chief justice has betrayed us before but I don't think he'll overturn all the impeachment precedents that are on the record. It would destroy his reputation entirely as a jurist. It's ragged enough after his votes/opinions on ObamaCare (a bizarre judicial act of legislating) and Obergefell (should have rejected the case entirely and/or recused since his own son is gay and the originating judge on the Ninth was a gay publicly in favor of gay marriage).
That may be her plan all along, go for impeachment while ignoring all the impeachment precedents (as GOP House members have accused) and then go for censure at the last minute.
The radicals have gone too far to stop at censure. That would be a sane course except that the candidates would have to answer why the Dems did not impeach the MFer if they had a solid case of treason, bribery and whatnot. Nancy lost control of the radicals, just as Lincoln lost control of the radicals.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of House bill No. 801, authorizing the payment of the rewards offered by the President of the United States, &c.
Mr. DAVIS. I should like some Senator to give the Senate some assurance that Abraham Lincoln's murderer was in fact killed. I have never seen myself any satisfactory evidence that Booth was killed.
Mr. HOWARD. In order to prove it demonstratively, perhaps we should be compelled to send for Boston Corbett, who shot him. I suppose the honorable Senator is speaking of Booth.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. I submit to my friend from Kentucky that there are some things that we must take judicial notice of, just as well as that Julius Caesar is dead.
Mr. DAVIS. I would rather have better testimony of the fact. I want it proved that Booth was in that barn; I cannot conceive, if he was in the barn, why he was not taken alive and brought to this city alive. I have never seen anybody or the evidence of anybody that identified Booth after he is said to have been killed. Why so much secrecy about it? Why was not his body brought up publicly to Washington city and exposed to the gaze of the multitude, that it might be identified? It may be that he is dead; but there is a mystery and a most inexplicable mystery to my mind about the whole affair. He may come back some of these days and murder somebody else.
I merely got up to make this suggestion. I supposed that some gentleman was in possession of facts going to show that Booth was identified. Identify Booth, and these men ought to have their reward, but I doubt whether this man Baker out to have anything. I believe he was a much bigger villain than any man he was pursuing. I do not doubt that at all; and I believe he is just such a man as to get up now a story of the capture of Booth when Booth had not been overtaken at all. If gentlemen will refer me to where I can get a narrative of facts to prove the identity of Booth, I will at my leisure read it with much interest. I want to be assured of the facts, not with a view to vote on this bill but with a view to the history of the transaction.
I do not see why, if Booth was in the barn, he should have been shot. He could have been captured just as well alive as dead. It would have been much more satisfactory to have brought him up here alive and to have inquired of him to reveal the whole transaction, to have implicated all who were guilty and to have exculpated all who were innocent. I do not see any reason why the matter had not taken that course. Bring his body up, carry it to the City Hall, expose it there to public gaze, let all who had seen him playing, all who associated with him on the stage or in the green room or the taverns and other public places, have had access to his body to have identified it. That was the way, where $100,000 was offered as a reward for capturing the man. I am certain I was as innocent of that murder as the child that is yet unborn; but I should have disliked to have $100,000 offered for me as an accomplice in that murder; it would have caused me to be hung or shot just as certain as fate.
Mr. CONNESS. That would be a big price.
Mr. DAVIS. I have no doubt that the honorable Senator from California could have had me captured or shot for $2.50 by some of his myrmidons.
Mr. ANTHONY. I am happy to relieve my friend from Kentucky by informing him that a small part of the skeleton of Booth is in the anatomical museum of the Surgeon General.
Mr. JOHNSON. Who knows that?
Mr. ANTHONY. I do not know how it is identified, but it is certified to be that.
Mr. HOWARD. In order to prove it demonstratively, perhaps we should be compelled to send for Boston Corbett, who shot him. I suppose the honorable Senator is speaking of Booth.
Corbett is quite a weird guy too. Mad as a hatter (and he was a hatter back when many of them were quite mad). Conflicting reports on whether this self-castrati hat-making maniac shot Booth or not.
#28. To: Tooconservative, BorisY, A K A Stone (#27)
Corbett is quite a weird guy too. Mad as a hatter (and he was a hatter back when many of them were quite mad). Conflicting reports on whether this self-castrati hat-making maniac shot Booth or not.
July 16th, 1858 Thomas Corbett, widower, a hatter known as “Boston”, was treated at Boston General Hospital for castration. The medical record begins:
Is a methodist, and having perused the 18th and 19th chapters of Matthew, he took a pair of scissors and made an opening an in. long in the lower part of the scrotum. He then drew down the testes and cut them both off. He then went to a prayer meeting, walked about some and ate a hearty dinner. There was not much internal hemorrhage but a clot had filed the opening so that the blood was confined in the scrotum which filled enormously and was black. He called in on Dr. Hodges (??) who laid it open and removed the blood....
Matthew 18:8 provides,
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter lifecrippled or lame, than having two hands or feet, to be case into the eternal fire."
It seems some ladies of the evening had come on to him, he had impure thoughts, he didn't want to be cast into the eternal fire, so he cut his nads off.
It sounds to me that he qualified as nuts. I do not believe he was the shooter of Booth, he was just a useful idiot who was used.
The body from the tobacco shed, said to be Booth, was transported to a ship for autopsy. Alexander Gardner, who worked with Matthew Brady, was dispatched to take pictures. Gardner photographed the dead body and returned to Washington and gave the pictures to Stanton. It was documented that Stanton received the pictures, but there is no evidence of what happened to them. Like the pages of Booth's diary, the pictures disappeared. The body may, or may not, have been Booth.
