51 - 49

Jack said:
"Bolton Drops a New Bomb on Republican Attempts to Block His Testimony"
https://www.motherjones.com/impeach...n-republican-attempts-to-block-his-testimony/

"More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton."
Click to expand...


[ WHICH THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN DID THROUGHOUT THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. SO???



SEVENTEEN FUCKING WITNESSES.
 
Jack said:
"Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the president’s impeachment defense."

Mick Mulvaney could be a Witness, ... along with Bolton. Any problem with THAT?
Click to expand...

No, provided we can hear from Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden and probably Shifty as well. Not to mention any other witnesses that can contradict whatever Bolton has supposedly written in his book.

But that’s all a moot point now. The Senate voted down witnesses before we could find out whether Democrats would allow any and every republican witness.

I’m far from convinced they would have.
 
Jack said:
"Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an Oval Office conversation in early May that included the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the president’s impeachment defense."

Mick Mulvaney could be a Witness, ... along with Bolton. Any problem with THAT?
Click to expand...



THEY HAD SEVENTEEN WITNESSES....AND THEY REFUSED TO CALL EITHER ONE OF THESE TWO.


HOW ABOUT BOTH BIDENS, SHOKIN, SCHIFF and the WHISTLEBLOWER? ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT?
 
Darth Omar said:
No, provided we can hear from Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden and probably Shifty as well. Not to mention any other witnesses that can contradict whatever Bolton has supposedly written in his book.

But that’s all a moot point now. The Senate voted down witnesses before we could find out whether Democrats would allow any and every republican witness.

I’m far from convinced they would have.
Click to expand...

The only question: 'Why not call Witnesses'?
 
Jack said:
The only question: 'Why not call Witnesses'?
Click to expand...

As a matter of principle.

It’s up to the House to complete their record by calling all relevant witnesses *before* not after, voting on the articles. If they wanted Bolton, they should have waited on him but they didn’t. They wanted Trump impeached before Christmas—which is sort of wtf?

Put simply, Democrats got in a hurry and now they want to finish the impeachment inquiry in the Senate. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Future Houses will have all their ducks in a row before they vote on the articles [and maybe get one or two opposition party votes] on account of this.
 
Darth Omar said:
No, provided we can hear from Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden and probably Shifty as well. Not to mention any other witnesses that can contradict whatever Bolton has supposedly written in his book.

But that’s all a moot point now. The Senate voted down witnesses before we could find out whether Democrats would allow any and every republican witness.

I’m far from convinced they would have.
Click to expand...

Are you nuts? None of them have a thing to do with Trump and his crime spree. The Dems had no power. The Senate was doing what Moscow Mitch directed. The Dems could not allow or disallow anyone.
 
Darth Omar said:
As a matter of principle.

It’s up to the House to complete their record by calling all relevant witnesses *before* not after, voting on the articles. If they wanted Bolton, they should have waited on him but they didn’t. They wanted Trump impeached before Christmas—which is sort of wtf?

Put simply, Democrats got in a hurry and now they want to finish the impeachment inquiry in the Senate. They shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Future Houses will have all their ducks in a row before they vote on the articles [and maybe get one or two opposition party votes] on account of this.
Click to expand...

You either want to find the Truth or you don't. In this case, we all know what the Truth is, Trump attempted to extort the Ukrainian Leader. Now, once that fact is agreed to, you can determine if it's an impeachable offense.
 
Jack said:
You either want to find the Truth or you don't. In this case, we all know what the Truth is, Trump attempted to extort the Ukrainian Leader. Now, once that fact is agreed to, you can determine if it's an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

Dershowitz addressed that.

Note, I’m not granting that Trump pressured Zelensky. Zelensky twice denied it, and I won’t address your excuses for that.

But IF Trump pressured Zelensky, so long as Trump’s request was coupled with something that was in the national interest [I think knowing whether a prospective future president was involved in foreign corruption falls safely in that category] then it is *irrelevant* that it benefits him politically.
 
Darth Omar said:
Dershowitz addressed that.

Note, I’m not granting that Trump pressured Zelensky. Zelensky twice denied it, and I won’t address your excuses for that.

But IF Trump pressured Zelensky, so long as Trump’s request was coupled with something that was in the national interest [I think knowing whether a prospective future president was involved in foreign corruption falls safely in that category] then it is *irrelevant* that it benefits him politically.
Click to expand...

It seems Trump was only interested in Zelensky 'announcing' an investigation into a Political Rival ... and using Public Taxpayer Money as a bargaining chip. More will come out.
AG Barr. Devon Nunes. Lindsey Grahm. Giuliani. Pompeo.
 
Darth Omar said:
No, provided we can hear from Eric Ciaramella, Hunter Biden and probably Shifty as well. Not to mention any other witnesses that can contradict whatever Bolton has supposedly written in his book.

But that’s all a moot point now. The Senate voted down witnesses before we could find out whether Democrats would allow any and every republican witness.

I’m far from convinced they would have.
Click to expand...

THE DOJ IS FREE TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE....;)
 
Darth Omar said:
But IF Trump pressured Zelensky, so long as Trump’s request was coupled with something that was in the national interest [I think knowing whether a prospective future president was involved in foreign corruption falls safely in that category] then it is *irrelevant* that it benefits him politically.
Click to expand...

Dershowitz is the only one who believes that. The Founding Fathers specifically stated no emoluments, but Dershowitz is sure the Constitution is wrong. He says that as long as the president can claim that by accepting a bribe, he is helping America indirectly, it is all good.

So trump could accept a bribe, and say that it helped him pay for lunch, which made him a better leader of America. trump could murder Biden, and claim that helped trump stay in power, which he could claim he thought was better for America.
 
Darth Omar said:
The House could have done the same thing but they were in a rush to get Trump impeached by Christmas.

The House didn’t want to wait on Bolton and now the Senate doesn’t. Poor Bolton, nobody wants to wait on him lol.
Click to expand...
With executive privilege it debatable if a court would allow Bolton to testify. Trump has an obligation to the office to protect the Presidents privacy between his advisers and the President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top