Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT

[HumblePi]

So someone is saying that they were told in private, that this is what is going on and only they need to be trusted on this?

What, no recording, no other documents, and it still doesn't prove beyond what the democrats have already failed at trying to prove already, so what is the actual point of doing all of this?

Huh? What are you going on about? This has nothing to do with whatever you think. This is about Bolton's manuscript.

 

[jmotivator]

Why didnt you demand this witness when the House was leading the investigation? The dems voted to impeach then immediately demanded that the senate call witnesses. Personally, I dont think Bolton will give you what you are drooling for so I dont care if he testifies or not. BUt if they are going to call witnesses, Ill give you Bolton but I want the whistleblower and Biden or no deal.

If this was an actual federal trial then the prosecution would be losing their law license.

Moreover, if this were an actual trial the case would have been thrown out of court on summary judgement. That is what should happen here.

Half of the Democrats Articles of impeachment amount to this: "You see, your honor, the defendant, in requesting a lawyer be present at his questioning, impeded our investigation... so clearly this is obstruction!"

The silver lining for the Democrats, after this disgrace, would be that they can choose to start over and run an appropriate and constitutionally sound impeachment process immediately if they wish.

And now they are trying to save the second article with a "We have rumor that someone said the defendant said something about something that might be a crime though he didn't do it. Thought crime!"

 

[jmotivator]

Sorry, you dont get to dictate the terms. You conservatives are all the same.

Republicans do get to dictate the terms in the Senate, though, the same way the Democrats dictated the terms in the house.

You lose.

 

[Obscurity]

Republicans do get to dictate the terms in the Senate, though, the same way the Democrats dictated the terms in the house.

You lose.

The only loser here is the american public, especially the brainwashed and bat**** insane fox news viewerbase, who are being shielded from the house arguments, thanks to their thin skinned, inability to tolerate any criticism of their lunatic, inept, geriatric president.

Make no mistake; you will rue the day you enable this behavior.

 

[Conservative]

The only loser here is the american public, especially the brainwashed and bat**** insane fox news viewerbase, who are being shielded from the house arguments, thanks to their thin skinned, inability to tolerate any criticism of their lunatic, inept, geriatric president.

Make no mistake; you will rue the day you enable this behavior.

That is nothing more than liberal arrogance, how has the American public been hurt by Trump? Seems it is vice versa with you and others. The results tell a different story so if the American people have been brainwashed then I join that list because fiscal results and national security goals have been met. Thin skinned liberals are going ballistic over a non issue and you are fulfilling the true Russian goal of creating chaos. You truly do hate your country like almost all other radicals

 

[Obscurity]

That is nothing more than liberal arrogance, how has the American public been hurt by Trump? Seems it is vice versa with you and others. The results tell a different story so if the American people have been brainwashed then I join that list because fiscal results and national security goals have been met. Thin skinned liberals are going ballistic over a non issue and you are fulfilling the true Russian goal of creating chaos. You truly do hate your country like almost all other radicals

The only folks with thin skin here are republicans, shielded from the democrats case by traitor fox news.

 

[Conservative]

The only folks with thin skin here are republicans, shielded from the democrats case by traitor fox news.

Lol, typical left wing radical comments Blame everything on that evil Fox News while ignoring all the official data

How are you ever going to survive the next 5 years of having trump in the White House?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[jmotivator]

The only loser here is the american public, especially the brainwashed and bat**** insane fox news viewerbase, who are being shielded from the house arguments, thanks to their thin skinned, inability to tolerate any criticism of their lunatic, inept, geriatric president.

Make no mistake; you will rue the day you enable this behavior.

Blah blah, the American public lost when the Democrats chose to have a purely political impeachment based on a disagreement on foreign policy.

America wins by asserting the dominance of process and constitutional authority in good governance. That applies to both sides here, but you don't fix a problem through a bigger mistake.

The Democrats need to go down hard on their abuse of power, and the Democrat leadership needs to be rid of the authoritarians wannabe dictators in their leadership.

Just as in the Judicial system, enforcement of fair criminal proceedings is far more important than any single potential criminal trial.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and the prosecutor in this case didn't bother.

 

[Obscurity]

Lol, typical left wing radical comments Blame everything on that evil Fox News while ignoring all the official data

How are you ever going to survive the next 5 years of having trump in the White House?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Look at how you talk to people.

Yes, Fox News is, second to evangelicals and republicans at large, the most dangerous thing to democracy in this country. Fox has brainwashed their viewership. Brain Washed. Absolutely wiped.

You guys can't even agree that up is up and down is down.

All you do is incessantly whine about 2016.

The most thin skinned batch of undeserving, unabashedly authoritarian theocrats ever to disgrace this nation with their odious, slobbering presence.

 

[Obscurity]

Blah blah, the American public lost when the Democrats chose to have a purely political impeachment based on a disagreement on foreign policy.

America wins by asserting the dominance of process and constitutional authority in good governance. That applies to both sides here, but you don't fix a problem through a bigger mistake.

The Democrats need to go down hard on their abuse of power, and the Democrat leadership needs to be rid of the authoritarians wannabe dictators in their leadership.

Just as in the Judicial system, enforcement of fair criminal proceedings is far more important than any single potential criminal trial.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and the prosecutor in this case didn't bother.

Sorry, foreign policy is not investigating domestic political rivals.

You guys don't even have a cogent defense.

1. If trump wanted the "corruption" investigated, he could have had our institutions do it in the first 2 years of his office. He didn't. Why?

2. Trump can fire ambassadors at any time. YEt, he chose to smear and disparage Yovanovitch with a shadow corruption brigade - why not just fire her?

3. Trump, if he cared about Ukraine's corruption, could have investigated that in 2016. Why didn't he?

Your entire argument is garbage. Total garbage. There is literally no defense to any of this and not even a valid answer to the 3 simple and direct questions I posed above. I've asked it multiple times, of multiple cons, and not one of them have actually answered these questions, directly, at all. At all.

 

[jmotivator]

The only loser here is the american public, especially the brainwashed and bat**** insane fox news viewerbase, who are being shielded from the house arguments, thanks to their thin skinned, inability to tolerate any criticism of their lunatic, inept, geriatric president.

Make no mistake; you will rue the day you enable this behavior.

There is an old rule in debate that you must address an argument with equal vigor as was used in the creation of the argument. There is a longer argument for why that is so, but the logic extends to this impeachment. To maintain the seriousness of the impeachment responsibilities, a purely political impeachment should not be challenged on any level beyond pure politics. You have to do this or you will normalize purely political impeachments.

The Democrats need to eat **** on this one for the good of the country.

 

[Obscurity]

There is an old rule in debate that you must address an argument with equal vigor as was used in the creation of the argument. There is a longer argument for why that is so, but the logic extends to this impeachment. To maintain the seriousness of the impeachment responsibilities, a purely political impeachment should not be challenged on any level beyond pure politics. You have to do this or you will normalize purely political impeachments.

The Democrats need to eat **** on this one for the good of the country.

Of course, you now grace the pile of conservatives who failed to answer my questions. What else is new?

No, the only party that needs to eat **** is the republicans, and those who vote for them.

Abdicating to you guys is DAMNING this nation straight to hell.

You must be opposed, crushed, smashed, and relegated to a footnote in our vast history.

 

[jmotivator]

Sorry, foreign policy is not investigating domestic political rivals.

They are not mutually exclusive. Being a political rival does not grant you immunity from prosecution, and the investigation into Trump in 2016 should be your first clue.

You guys don't even have a cogent defense.

Well, a cogent defense isn't necessary against a non-cogent prosecution. But the Republican argument is sound constitutionally, and the Democrats have acted in, at best, bad faith in the execution of their duties in the House.

1. If trump wanted the "corruption" investigated, he could have had our institutions do it in the first 2 years of his office. He didn't. Why?

Because the anti-Corruption President of Ukraine wasn't elected until 2019. He wasn't going to get the previous corrupt government of Ukraine to investigate itself.

2. Trump can fire ambassadors at any time. YEt, he chose to smear and disparage Yovanovitch with a shadow corruption brigade - why not just fire her?

What difference does that make? Do you get impeached for saying mean things? :roll:

3. Trump, if he cared about Ukraine's corruption, could have investigated that in 2016. Why didn't he?

...when he wasn't president?

His call with Zelensky in fact mentioned that now that Zelensky is in office he IS interested in investigating Ukrainian involvement in teh 2016 elections. :lol:

Your entire argument is garbage. Total garbage. There is literally no defense to any of this and not even a valid answer to the 3 simple and direct questions I posed above. I've asked it multiple times, of multiple cons, and not one of them have actually answered these questions, directly, at all. At all.

This little exercise is evidence that I'm not the one with problematic arguments. :lamo

 

[jmotivator]

Of course, you now grace the pile of conservatives who failed to answer my questions. What else is new?

No, the only party that needs to eat **** is the republicans, and those who vote for them.

Abdicating to you guys is DAMNING this nation straight to hell.

You must be opposed, crushed, smashed, and relegated to a footnote in our vast history.

"RAAAR!!" - Obscurity, 2020

The sad thing is that you don't realize that in your militant support for anti-constitutional behavior by the Democrats is the real problem.. and they sold you down that road through constant fearmongering.

 

[Obscurity]

They are not mutually exclusive. Being a political rival does not grant you immunity from prosecution, and the investigation into Trump in 2016 should be your first clue.



Well, a cogent defense isn't necessary against a non-cogent prosecution. But the Republican argument is sound constitutionally, and the Democrats have acted in, at best, bad faith in the execution of their duties in the House.



Because the anti-Corruption President of Ukraine wasn't elected until 2019. He wasn't going to get the previous corrupt government of Ukraine to investigate itself.



What difference does that make? Do you get impeached for saying mean things? :roll:



...when he wasn't president?

His call with Zelensky in fact mentioned that now that Zelensky is in office he IS interested in investigating Ukrainian involvement in teh 2016 elections. :lol:



This little exercise is evidence that I'm not the one with problematic arguments. :lamo

It's evidence you didn't answer at all.

1. This undermines your premise. If the prior admin was corrupt, then why is Trump and his lawyer working with members of the prior corrupt admin to oust an ambassador Trump could have simply fired?

2. It makes a difference because it proves corrupt intent. And you know it. Hence why you didn't answer honestly. What else is new with you guys? Failure to answer, as is typical with every conservative I've asked this question.

3. Fair; 2017. He could have done so the day he took office. He didn't. Why?

This exercise proves once again you and the rest of the brainwashed right wing fox media consumer-misinformation sphere have no intent to listen to the counter arguments.

Your media handlers won't allow it.

 

[Obscurity]

"RAAAR!!" - Obscurity, 2020

The sad thing is that you don't realize that in your militant support for anti-constitutional behavior by the Democrats is the real problem.. and they sold you down that road through constant fearmongering.

I militantly support the constitution; and I oppose you right wingers. For 20 some odd years you've projected your madness onto the democrats. Since Newt and the "Moral Majority" and the "tea Party" and everything else, you've managed to construct a house of cards claiming the left is the problem.

This is unacceptable. History will not look kindly on you folks.

 

[Erod]

Examples, please? Shouldn't be hard, if you aren't lying yourself. Which I'm sure you aren't, since obviously the truth is so important to you.

How about half a dozen or so? In return, I'll supply a few thousand Trump lies.

Or how about this...for every lie you can find that Schiff made, I'll supply ten Trump lies. Who do you think will run out of examples first?

Let's start with this entire sham of an impeachment. It's all based on lies. Just like the dossier, collusion, the Mueller report, obstruction, Blasey-Ford, the children on the border, and the rest of the failed attempts the past three years.

Schiff is synonym for "lie." Nothing more.

The best way to demonstrate this?

The impeachment should be getting huge attention. It's not. Nobody is paying attention because EVERYBODY knows it's a political ploy and nothing else. The television ratings are putrid. Americans on both sides are tuned out. A phone conversation with a guy in Ukraine is going to get a president impeached? Seriously? Uh.....no. LOL

People are talking about Kobe, the coronavirus, the Super Bowl, Ricky Gervais, etc.

They're enjoying the best economy and unemployment rate in their lifetimes. They're working and taking care of their families. They don't follow or care about Trump on a minute-by-minute basis like the crazies. They're happy.

 

[Erod]

I militantly support the constitution; and I oppose you right wingers. For 20 some odd years you've projected your madness onto the democrats. Since Newt and the "Moral Majority" and the "tea Party" and everything else, you've managed to construct a house of cards claiming the left is the problem.

This is unacceptable. History will not look kindly on you folks.

What a load of crap.

The sooner you crazies take your big "L" in all this, the better off you'll be. The rest of us are quickly leaving you behind.

 

[jpn]

The case Trump's lawyers laid out today against Hunter Biden and his democrat supporters was compelling and is now a permanent part of the Congressional record for all to see.

It's compelling to tools and fools.

 

[jpn]

Refusing to recognize the evidence doesn’t make it disappear.

"The evidence." There is none. Just innuendo.

 

[jpn]

Let's start with this entire sham of an impeachment. It's all based on lies. Just like the dossier, collusion, the Mueller report, obstruction, Blasey-Ford, the children on the border, and the rest of the failed attempts the past three years.
Schiff is synonym for "lie." Nothing more.
The best way to demonstrate this?
The impeachment should be getting huge attention. It's not. Nobody is paying attention because EVERYBODY knows it's a political ploy and nothing else. The television ratings are putrid. Americans on both sides are tuned out. A phone conversation with a guy in Ukraine is going to get a president impeached? Seriously? Uh.....no. LOL
People are talking about Kobe, the coronavirus, the Super Bowl, Ricky Gervais, etc.
They're enjoying the best economy and unemployment rate in their lifetimes. They're working and taking care of their families. They don't follow or care about Trump on a minute-by-minute basis like the crazies. They're happy.

One Schiff "lie" for ten Trump lies. You start.

 

[Obscurity]

What a load of crap.

The sooner you crazies take your big "L" in all this, the better off you'll be. The rest of us are quickly leaving you behind.

Newp. You're wrong. The republicans broke politics.

End of story.

History agrees with me; not you.

 

[jmotivator]

It's evidence you didn't answer at all.

1. This undermines your premise. If the prior admin was corrupt, then why is Trump and his lawyer working with members of the prior corrupt admin to oust an ambassador Trump could have simply fired?

Trump wasn't "working with the corrupt Ukrainians". The recording that you are talking about was at a meeting of Trump donors. He wanted her fired because the advice he was given was that the ambassador was not working with the Trump foreign policy team.

Question for you: Is Lev Parnas telling the truth about the ambassador in that recording?

2. It makes a difference because it proves corrupt intent. And you know it. Hence why you didn't answer honestly. What else is new with you guys? Failure to answer, as is typical with every conservative I've asked this question.

Corrupt intent for what? You have already conceded that Trump could fire her for any reason. What was his "corrupt intent" in firing the ambassador, because he didn't like her? That isn't a corrupt intent, that is a valid reason. If the President believes that he can't work with an ambassador then the ambassador goes. If he feels the need to publicly state his dislike of the ambassador that doesn't make the act corrupt.

Also, isn't the bad mouthing of the ambassador you are talking about the tweets he posted months after she was fired, and while she was testifying in the House? If so, what would his "intent" be for someone who was already fired?

3. Fair; 2017. He could have done so the day he took office. He didn't. Why?

Ukraine wasn't at the top of the to-do list for an incoming president. :roll:

This exercise proves once again you and the rest of the brainwashed right wing fox media consumer-misinformation sphere have no intent to listen to the counter arguments.

Well, no, you still make really silly arguments built on a shifting sandbar of goofy presumptions.

Your media handlers won't allow it.

... like this one, for example.

 

[Obscurity]

Trump wasn't "working with the corrupt Ukrainians". The recording that you are talking about was at a meeting of Trump donors. He wanted her fired because the advice he was given was that the ambassador was not working with the Trump foreign policy team.

Question for you: Is Lev Parnas telling the truth about the ambassador in that recording?



Corrupt intent for what? You have already conceded that Trump could fire her for any reason. What was his "corrupt intent" in firing the ambassador, because he didn't like her? That isn't a corrupt intent, that is a valid reason. If the President believes that he can't work with an ambassador then the ambassador goes. If he feels the need to publicly state his dislike of the ambassador that doesn't make the act corrupt.

Also, isn't the bad mouthing of the ambassador you are talking about the tweets he posted months after she was fired, and while she was testifying in the House? If so, what would his "intent" be for someone who was already fired?



Ukraine wasn't at the top of the to-do list for an incoming president. :roll:



Well, no, you still make really silly arguments built on a shifting sandbar of goofy presumptions.



... like this one, for example.

Again, no real answers.

1. Trump and Giuliani were working with corrupt prior administration officials in Ukraine. If he cared about corruption, he wouldn't have Giuliani running around with them, now would he?

2. Corrupt intent - covering his desire for political gain by smearing Yovanovitch, who was an impedement to this little scheme by being anti-corruption. So his intent here is clear; make her LOOK corrupt, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, because folks like you, consuming fox news, will continue to buy it.

3. Oh, but it is the second Biden is in the picture? Exactly, as I thought - no real answers.

Sad to say, nothing you mention here is a real argument. It's "so what" on a grand scale.

 

[jmotivator]

I militantly support the constitution; and I oppose you right wingers. For 20 some odd years you've projected your madness onto the democrats. Since Newt and the "Moral Majority" and the "tea Party" and everything else, you've managed to construct a house of cards claiming the left is the problem.

This is unacceptable. History will not look kindly on you folks.

No you don't.

The power of the House to subpoena is rooted in authority granted by a House vote... a vote that Schiff didn't have before issuing his subpoenas.

The constitution sets out three coequal branches of Government and a series of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch has primacy over the other. Schiff's foolish "Obstruction of Congress" gambit presumes that the House has superior authority to the other two branches.

The whole foundation of the Democrats argument is patently unconstitutional.