"John Bolton willing to testify in Trump's impeachment trial"

The multiple and highly credible AMERICANS who said Trump pressured Zelensky were UNDER OATH.

Sondland says Trump didn’t explicitly link Ukraine aid to probes

“I don’t recall President Trump ever talking with me about any security assistance,”

“The only thing we got directly from Guiliani was that the Burisma and 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting,” Sondland said. “The aid was my own personal, you know, guess” based on, “two plus two equals four.”


Sondland asked Trump. "What do you want from Ukraine?"
Trump said, "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.
Tell Zelensky to do the right thing."

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Says Sondland Never Tied Aid to Investigations


MR . RATCLIFFE: Okay. So , based on your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government became aware of a hold on military aid until 2 days later, on August 29th.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: That's my understanding.

MR . RATCLIFFE : That's your understanding. And that would have been well over a month after the July 25th call between President Trump and President Zelensky.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Correct.

MR. RATCLIFFE : And to your knowledge , nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: That is correct.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Great. Thank you for clarifying.
 
Hello Darth,



Good luck subpoenaing a head of foreign State. There won't be any testimony from Zelensky. You have no testimony. All you have is not sworn public statements under heavy duress. But we know Republicans will be quick to accept whatever they can get to support their flimsy story. And for most Trump fans, it really doesn't take much. Any far -fetched explanation will do. That much is obvious. Fighting corruption indeed. That story is as solid as a straw house.

But I tell you what.

Trump himself would be more than welcome to come get sworn in and testify any time he wants to. Unless he's afraid...............................................

One of the reasons Trump settles most of his lawsuits OUT OF COURT...is there no way any competent lawyer will let him near a witness stand under oath. He simply cannot tell the truth.
 
Once again, so are telling us that new evidence that surfaces before a trial begins or even during that trial can't be considered cause the person was already indited?

Evidence for what? Trump hasn't committed any crimes nor has he been charged with any you low IQ partisan hack.

And by the way, they can impeach Trump again tomorrow, another House Committee reveals evidence Trump abused his office on another matter and the whole process can begin again, there is one and done rule

They can impeach Trump a dozen times for all I care. It will not change ONE thing. Trump will NEVER be convicted. Trump will win re-election. Hell, the House may go back to the Republicans in 2020. Then you insufferable assholes will have even more to cry, lie and bitch about.

;)
 
Talk to "truthie," as he said, it is a figure of speech, a figure of speech describing something shady and negative, something looking like a drug deal

I was asking you. :dunno: So why do you want to destroy Sondland, he's your key witness against Trump?
 
One of the reasons Trump settles most of his lawsuits OUT OF COURT...is there no way any competent lawyer will let him near a witness stand under oath. He simply cannot tell the truth.

More proof of how naive and ignorant you are about how the real world operates. :rolleyes:
 
Why should he? Is there a criminal trial going on we don't know about? Has Trump been charged with anything criminal?



Trump doesn't need a defense; he has the facts on his side. Democrats have a clown show and hyperbole. That is why they will FAIL to win in 2020 and FAIL to convict Trump of anything.

No shit-for-brains; we don't impeach Presidents because we don't like them. Dunce.

How many times do we have to repeat the facts, impeachment isn't statutory, what criminal offense did Andrew Johnson commit?

But it was nice to see a Trumpkin recite the lemmings' creed, "Trump doesn't need a defense," the guy knew his congregation perfectly when he boasted he could shoot someone on 5th Ave in broad daylight and not lose some votes, "Trump doesn't need a defense." in their eyes Trump never "needs a defense," and never will, I think there exists words that describe such fanaticism
 
Trump said a lot of stuff, the majority of which turned out to be a lie or fabrication, few outside of the Fox bubble believe anything Trump says, he wasn't correct then, nor is he correct now, otherwise he would let anyone on his staff testify to set the record straight

You didn’t really think you’d get away with that did you lol?

The last impeachment effort by Democrats was centered around Russian collusion [or conspiracy if you want the legal term] and Trump wore even me out with claiming to be innocent and that it was hoax.

Plainly, Trump was right on all three counts because Mullet ended with a thud and the collusion/conspiracy mania turned out to be hoax: the only thing Democrats had any Hope was in getting Trump on obstructing an investigation—the origins of which, are under criminal investigation.

Let that thought sink in.
 
Did he say it under oath? Did he say it in a Court of Law?

And as I just told your comrade, if that is Trump's defense he is in trouble, that is like taking the word of a guy with a gun pointed at his head saying he never felt intimidated

This won’t be a court of law if the trial ever happens.

Impeachment trials are political trials set up in a legal framework. Zelensky WILL come up; Democrats will object and someone will ask for evidence that Zelensky lied.

Do you have any?
 
How many times do we have to repeat the facts, impeachment isn't statutory, what criminal offense did Andrew Johnson commit?

How many times do we have to beat it into the heads of uneducated leftist dullards that without high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment is pointless.

Was Jackson convicted? Yes or no? Was Clinton convicted? Yes or no?

But it was nice to see a Trumpkin recite the lemmings' creed, "Trump doesn't need a defense," the guy knew his congregation perfectly when he boasted he could shoot someone on 5th Ave in broad daylight and not lose some votes, "Trump doesn't need a defense." in their eyes Trump never "needs a defense," and never will, I think there exists words that describe such fanaticism

No-BS-advice-1.gif
 
Well if Bolton does know something that supports the drug deal he described as happening he surely wants to make sure that history doesn't associate him with the cover up

I think that's exactly it. Plus he's got a tell-all book coming out. He has a legacy to preserve; he would like to be seen as loyal, patriotic, etc. So will he fall on his sword for TRE45ON, or will he try to exonerate himself by rolling on Trump and saving the nation?
 
Hello Frank,

One of the reasons Trump settles most of his lawsuits OUT OF COURT...is there no way any competent lawyer will let him near a witness stand under oath. He simply cannot tell the truth.

Yeah, that would be such a 'dirty trick' to try to 'trap' Trump into telling the truth. Even his fans know he is incapable of it. And what would be the point? They don't want the truth. They like being lied to.
 
Hello Darth,

This won’t be a court of law if the trial ever happens.

Impeachment trials are political trials set up in a legal framework. Zelensky WILL come up; Democrats will object and someone will ask for evidence that Zelensky lied.

Do you have any?

Zelensky was not sworn in when he said that. The people who say there was pressure testified under oath.
 
Back
Top