• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

Obscurity said:
Its clear you dont. You sound troubled. And you should be. You guys have been runnin around here for 3 years with your pro trump TDs insanity while the rest of us hold you he was a corrupt pos and a liar and cheat.

The evidence schiff and the dems laid out crushed trump. This is the final blow. Nothing is going to stopp this from coming out. What trump did is how illegal.

He needs to resign.
Click to expand...

Kinda like when Trump was recorded saying "I like to grab them by their ******s". That was the final blow.....and then he won the Presidency!
 
vegas giants said:
So you dont want to hear all the evidence?
Click to expand...

Nope! What he is being accused of doesn't bother me. A President has got to do what a President has got to do!
 
Mongidig said:
Nope! What he is being accused of doesn't bother me. A President has got to do what a President has got to do!
Click to expand...

Ok. I have you down for hiding the evidence from the American people. Thanks
 
Mongidig said:
There is no validity to this Bolten book rumor! I'm smart enough to be able to sift through the BS and know the truth. You people only see what you desperately want to see. You need somebody who has some perspective to set you straight. I should charge for my services.
Click to expand...
You know, just know, that the Bolton book story is false. I couldn’t think of a better example of cognitive dissonance. The Bolton story rocks your strongly held belief, so you dismiss the evidence in favor of your beliefs.
 
Mongidig said:
Kinda like when Trump was recorded saying "I like to grab them by their ******s". That was the final blow.....and then he won the Presidency!
Click to expand...

This is different.
 
Mongidig said:
Nope! What he is being accused of doesn't bother me. A President has got to do what a President has got to do!
Click to expand...

This is truly sad. Truly sad.

And this right here people is the truth. There is literally no bottom to this abyss
 
Bolton's lawyer confirms it is real.

Checkmate.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

After this revelation, the likelihood that at least some witnesses will be called is now significantly greater.

This, combined with the Parnas revelations, make it significantly more difficult to refute the argument that more witnesses are not necessary.
Click to expand...

As predicted weeks ago, we have in the closing days of the misbegotten trial a breathless and increasingly strident media "finding new evidence" surprise. It's an old ploy, a variation on the manufactured "October surprise" and "Supreme Court Witness" surprise we've seen before - always predictable when one side is desperate .

You'd think, after the pratfalls of prior rumors of "big stories" of the 11th hour (e.g. the liberal and Maddow rumors of the Mueller report) someone writing this stuff might have a sense of shame - nope, here we go again.

For those of us not eating glue or drinking wood alcohol, its another setup for a nothing burger. And even if such characterizations of the book were true, it is absolutely irrelevant to evidence already produced by testimony of the major players.

Everyone assumes that, to one degree or another, Trump people with Trump's knowledge was pressuring the Ukraine on two aspects of corruption of interest to Trump. Most of us assume that his people, to one degree or another, wanted an understanding in return for more overt public meetings. And most of us assume that whatever Trump's intent, there was no quid pro quo demand or red line actually issued to the Ukraine in return for releasing funds for security assistance...EVEN IF Trump fumed to Bolton that he wanted one.

Whatever Trump's private fulminations on Ukraine, or expectations of subordinates, unlike the termination of Comey Trumps frustrations came to NOTHING. Ukraine got the security assistance within the same budget year, and Trumps (or his people's) nudging wasn't effective.

All this is great stuff for a political soap opera, a "drama" providing insight into the cogs and gears of Trump's mental world. It's also instructive as the difference between the world views of the deep state, traditional conservatives (such as Bolton), and Trump's alt right obsessions. But their is nothing illegal in having and wishing to enforce one's personal conspiratorial views - THAT is why he was elected.

So until such time as the rules of impeachment define "political abuse" as having and acting on extreme or heterodox views and policies that are not progressive or mainline conservative, this is pointless crisis mongering.

In short, Bolton is not going to testify. If he wants to get his opinion out, all he needs to do is call a press conference. If not, liberal rumors of his story by the NYT is worthless hype.

Get over it people.
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
As predicted weeks ago, we have in the closing days of the misbegotten trial a breathless and increasingly strident media "finding new evidence" surprise. It's an old ploy, a variation on the manufactured "October surprise" and "Supreme Court Witness" surprise we've seen before - always predictable when one side is desperate .

You'd think, after the pratfalls of prior rumors of "big stories" of the 11th hour (e.g. the liberal and Maddow rumors of the Mueller report) someone writing this stuff might have a sense of shame - nope, here we go again.

For those of us not eating glue or drinking wood alcohol, its another setup for a nothing burger. And even if such characterizations of the book were true, it is absolutely irrelevant to evidence already produced by testimony of the major players.

Everyone assumes that, to one degree or another, Trump people with Trump's knowledge was pressuring the Ukraine on two aspects of corruption of interest to Trump. Most of us assume that his people, to one degree or another, wanted an understanding in return for more overt public meetings. And most of us assume that whatever Trump's intent, there was no quid pro quo demand or red line issued to the Ukraine on withholding security assistance.

Whatever Trump's private fulminations on Ukraine, or expectations of subordinates, unlike the termination of Comey Trumps frustrations came to NOTHING. Ukraine got the security assistance within the same budget year, and Trumps (or his people's) nudging wasn't effective.

All this is great stuff for a political soap opera, a "drama" providing insight into the cogs and gears of Trump's mental world. It's also instructive as the difference between the world views of the deep state, traditional conservatives (such as Bolton), and Trump's alt right obsessions. But their is nothing illegal in having and wishing to enforce one's personal conspiratorial views - THAT is why he was elected.

So until such time as the rules of impeachment define "political abuse" as having extreme or heterodox views and policies that are not progressive or mainline conservative, this is pointless crisis mongering.

In short, Bolton is not going to testify. If he wants to get his opinion out, all he needs to do is call a press conference. If not, liberal rumors by the NYT is worthless.
Click to expand...

So you dont want to hear all.the evidence.


Got it
 
Mongidig said:
I'm just going by how wrong you were with Smollette, Kavanough, Covington etc. Remember how you all thought those stories were real when they broke? I'm just trying to save you from getting your little hearts broke again.
Click to expand...

Kavanough is still a scumbag who lied to Congress and gets criminally aggressive to women when drunk. The U.S. Senate is not a court of law by a long shot. That goes double for the sham trial that Trump and Mitch are running. You would think they could get one relevant witness to lie and defend the man before they acquit him wouldn't you? Every good "Don" has a few throwaway liars to make the fix look real.
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
As predicted weeks ago, we have in the closing days of the misbegotten trial a breathless and increasingly strident media "finding new evidence" surprise. It's an old ploy, a variation on the manufactured "October surprise" and "Supreme Court Witness" surprise we've seen before - always predictable when one side is desperate .

You'd think, after the pratfalls of prior rumors of "big stories" of the 11th hour (e.g. the liberal and Maddow rumors of the Mueller report) someone writing this stuff might have a sense of shame - nope, here we go again.

For those of us not eating glue or drinking wood alcohol, its another setup for a nothing burger. And even if such characterizations of the book were true, it is absolutely irrelevant to evidence already produced by testimony of the major players.

Everyone assumes that, to one degree or another, Trump people with Trump's knowledge was pressuring the Ukraine on two aspects of corruption of interest to Trump. Most of us assume that his people, to one degree or another, wanted an understanding in return for more overt public meetings. And most of us assume that whatever Trump's intent, there was no quid pro quo demand or red line actually issued to the Ukraine in return for releasing funds for security assistance...EVEN IF Trump fumed to Bolton that he wanted one.

Whatever Trump's private fulminations on Ukraine, or expectations of subordinates, unlike the termination of Comey Trumps frustrations came to NOTHING. Ukraine got the security assistance within the same budget year, and Trumps (or his people's) nudging wasn't effective.

All this is great stuff for a political soap opera, a "drama" providing insight into the cogs and gears of Trump's mental world. It's also instructive as the difference between the world views of the deep state, traditional conservatives (such as Bolton), and Trump's alt right obsessions. But their is nothing illegal in having and wishing to enforce one's personal conspiratorial views - THAT is why he was elected.

So until such time as the rules of impeachment define "political abuse" as having and acting on extreme or heterodox views and policies that are not progressive or mainline conservative, this is pointless crisis mongering.

In short, Bolton is not going to testify. If he wants to get his opinion out, all he needs to do is call a press conference. If not, liberal rumors of his story by the NYT is worthless hype.

Get over it people.
Click to expand...

Bolton's lawyer confirmed it is real.

Get over it.
 
vegas giants said:
So you dont want to hear all.the evidence.

Got it
Click to expand...

Sure I did and sure I do. However, you don't...and it's clear you don't even know the meaning of the word evidence - as I demonstrated earlier.
 
Obscurity said:
Bolton's lawyer confirmed it is real.

Get over it.
Click to expand...

Please provide a quotation wherein Bolton's lawyer confirmed that all the characterizations in the New York Times article is accurate.
 
maxparrish said:
Everyone assumes that, to one degree or another, Trump people with Trump's knowledge was pressuring the Ukraine on two aspects of corruption of interest to Trump.
Click to expand...

I have exchanged hundreds of posts with several dozen Trump supporters over the past few months on this forum. It may be true that most people assumed Trump sought to pressure Ukraine with respect to Burisma/Bidens and Crowdstrike, but unless all these Trump supporters have been lying to me then it is not true that it was ever a universally accepted opinion that Trump himself sought to threaten a withholding of approximately $400 million dollars in military aid in exchange for an investigation of the Bidens. In fact, the best evidence of this comes from Sondland's testimony and even Sondland could only testify to what Rudy Giuliani said and what his presumptions were. This is something Trump supporters have been trying their best to remind everyone of throughout this entire process.

These revelations are important. These revelations by Bolton reveal, for the first time, that Trump told Bolton in August he sought to threaten to withhold approximately $400 million dollars in military aid unless Ukraine investigated the Bidens.

Most of us assume that his people, to one degree or another, wanted an understanding in return for more overt public meetings.
Click to expand...

An "understanding"? Don't you mean a "quid pro quo"?

And most of us assume that whatever Trump's intent, there was no quid pro quo demand or red line actually issued to the Ukraine in return for releasing funds for security assistance
Click to expand...

Well, based on the transcript of Sondland and Taylor's testimony this isn't an opinion people should hold because both Sondland and Taylor said that Sondland did demand from Ukraine a public announcement of an investigation of Burisma/Bidens in exchange for the military aid. I can refer you to the actual testimony if you want where Sondland said this, and where Taylor said Sondland said this.

If anyone believes what you've just said now, then they haven't read or watched the testimony of Taylor and Sondland.

Whatever Trump's private fulminations on Ukraine, or expectations of subordinates, unlike the termination of Comey Trumps frustrations came to NOTHING. Ukraine got the security assistance within the same budget year, and Trumps (or his people's) nudging wasn't effective.
Click to expand...

1. According to Sondland and Taylor's testimony, Ukraine promised Sondland they would announce an investigation of Burisma/Bidens, and this promise occurred before the aid was disbursed.

2. $30 million dollars of the approximately $400 million dollars was not disbursed in time before the deadline.

3. Trump's abuse of office occurred when Trump and his people communicated to Ukraine that the military aid would not be disbursed until Ukraine promised to announce a public investigation of Bursima/Bidens with the intent of benefiting Trump's election campaign in 2020.

It's also instructive as the difference between the world views of the deep state, traditional conservatives (such as Bolton), and Trump's alt right obsessions. But their is nothing illegal in having and wishing to enforce one's personal conspiratorial views - THAT is why he was elected.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to gaslight people. It's not going to work.

Get over it people.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Paywalls suck.

So tell me...is this..."President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens" an exact quote from the book? Or is it the spinning nonsense someone at NYT **** onto the street?
Click to expand...
If that is an accurate and honest depiction of what Bolton said, would you agree that would be pretty bad for Trump?
 
Deleted due to premature posting.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The facts show that Trump used US foreign policy to pressure a vulnerable country to announce investigations into a political rival for his own personal political benefit. Regardless of what you want to whine about regarding the Democrats, the facts show the wrongdoing to have happened. It seems that you don't care that a President would corrupt the power of his office for his own personal advancement and at the expense of both our allies, our standing on the international stage and our democratic system itself.
Click to expand...

Conservatives are fixed on Making America Russia Instead and nothing will stand in the way.

Absolutely nothing.

They're going to do it no matter what. It's been their single minded purpose from the outset.

It gets easier for 'em each day given the feeble minded liberal opposition they have.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I have exchanged hundreds of posts...It may be true that most people assumed Trump sought to pressure Ukraine with respect to Burisma/Bidens and Crowdstrike, but unless all these Trump supporters have been lying to me then it is not true that it was ever a universally accepted opinion that Trump himself sought to threaten a withholding of approximately $400 million dollars in military aid in exchange for an investigation of the Bidens. ...
Click to expand...

Although tangential to my post, note that I said "to one degree or another", which is a broad qualifier. Therefore I think it more than fair to acknowledge that most of us impeachment critics assume that Trump had something, no matter how little, to do with Giuliani's actions in pressuring or at least attempting to pressure Ukraine on two aspects of corruption. Exactly how we define those aspects and the characterization of that pressure is matter of individual opinion.

And no one was lying to you. I didn't say it was universally accepted that the pressure was in the form of a Trump directed quid pro quo on security assistance. I said, "most of us assume that whatever Trump's intent, there was no quid pro quo demand or red line actually issued to the Ukraine in return for releasing funds for security assistance...EVEN IF Trump fumed to Bolton that he wanted one."

Other than seemingly misreading me and agreeing with me on what impeachment critics in general believe, I am not sure what the point of your comments were.

These revelations are important. These revelations by Bolton reveal, for the first time, that Trump told Bolton in August he sought to threaten to withhold approximately Alt400 million dollars in military aid unless Ukraine investigated the Bidens.
Click to expand...

These are alleged "revelations" - they are unsupported claims by a couple of NYTimes journalists on what they were told by others who told them what they claim they gleaned from the reputed manuscript. No quotes or specific citations were made, and the news characterizations vary from what Trump said "should be done" to "what Trump sought". They are not, as of yet, indicative of what Trump ACTUALLY did about it other than bitch.

An "understanding"? Don't you mean a "quid pro quo"?
Click to expand...
No I meant an understanding. Anything more than that and in what context is a matter of informed but varying opinion and unsupported conjecture.

...both Sondland and Taylor said that Sondland did demand from Ukraine a public announcement of an investigation of Burisma/Bidens in exchange for the military aid. I can refer you to the actual testimony if you want where Sondland said this, and where Taylor said Sondland said this. ...

1. According to Sondland and Taylor's testimony, Ukraine promised Sondland they would announce an investigation of Burisma/Bidens, and this promise occurred before the aid was disbursed.

2. $30 million dollars of the approximately $400 million dollars was not disbursed in time before the deadline.

3. Trump's abuse of office occurred when Trump and his people communicated to Ukraine that the military aid would not be disbursed until Ukraine promised to announce a public investigation of Bursima/Bidens with the intent of benefiting Trump's election campaign in 2020.
Click to expand...

I would be most pleased if you would cite the testimony that supports your assertions. And I would be equally pleased if you paid attention to the timeline and context of these statements, and not embellish their meaning.

I am aware that S said that he did "advise" the Ukraine, near or on September 1, 2019, that S surmised that for security assistance to be released Ukraine should make a statement of intentions to investigate B/B. However, I am also aware that this was AFTER the public controversy broke in late August and only after Ukraine became aware and worried. Ten days later the hold was lifted.

S also testified that his supposition was NOT on orders from Trump, but his own supposition to explain the aid delay. Soon thereafter (between sept 7 and 9th), Trump told S that Trump didn't want anything, other than for Z to "do the right thing" on corruption.

This is NOT evidence that Trump (or most of his people) had communicated a prior quid pro quo demand to the Ukraine on release of the military assistance in exchange for a public announcement of an investigation of B/B. And it is certainly no evidence that the Ukraine had received a Quid Pro Quo demand on military assistance before or immediately after the July 25 call.

This is evidence is a mouse expected to carry an elephant of nonsense.

Stop trying to gaslight people. It's not going to work.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, I'm not one gaslighting, am I?
 
maxparrish said:
Please provide a quotation wherein Bolton's lawyer confirmed that all the characterizations in the New York Times article is accurate.
Click to expand...

What do you think it means when he confirms the book was leaked by a corrupted review process?

It means he is not denying the allegation. The term leak Is the tell.

Its confirmed. Doesnt matter. Fox has already immunized their audience so support wont collapse.
 
Cardinal said:
So how many smoking guns do you suppose Republicans can ignore?
Click to expand...


Well. They crammed their “defense” into two hours and scheduled it on Saturday afternoon, in the hope of avoiding an audience.

Even so, their presentation was a catalog of transparent and previously discredited lies. One right after another!

The denial and look the other way machine will remain cranked up.
 
maxparrish said:
Although tangential to my post, note that I said "to one degree or another", which is a broad qualifier. Therefore I think it more than fair to acknowledge that most of us impeachment critics assume that Trump had something, no matter how little, to do with Giuliani's actions in pressuring or at least attempting to pressure Ukraine on two aspects of corruption. Exactly how we define those aspects and the characterization of that pressure is matter of individual opinion.

And no one was lying to you. I didn't say it was universally accepted that the pressure was in the form of a Trump directed quid pro quo on security assistance. I said, "most of us assume that whatever Trump's intent, there was no quid pro quo demand or red line actually issued to the Ukraine in return for releasing funds for security assistance...EVEN IF Trump fumed to Bolton that he wanted one."

Other than seemingly misreading me and agreeing with me on what impeachment critics in general believe, I am not sure what the point of your comments were.



These are alleged "revelations" - they are unsupported claims by a couple of NYTimes journalists on what they were told by others who told them what they claim they gleaned from the reputed manuscript. No quotes or specific citations were made, and the news characterizations vary from what Trump said "should be done" to "what Trump sought". They are not, as of yet, indicative of what Trump ACTUALLY did about it other than bitch.

No I meant an understanding. Anything more than that and in what context is a matter of informed but varying opinion and unsupported conjecture.



I would be most pleased if you would cite the testimony that supports your assertions. And I would be equally pleased if you paid attention to the timeline and context of these statements, and not embellish their meaning.

I am aware that S said that he did "advise" the Ukraine, near or on September 1, 2019, that S surmised that for security assistance to be released Ukraine should make a statement of intentions to investigate B/B. However, I am also aware that this was AFTER the public controversy broke in late August and only after Ukraine became aware and worried. Ten days later the hold was lifted.

S also testified that his supposition was NOT on orders from Trump, but his own supposition to explain the aid delay. Soon thereafter (between sept 7 and 9th), Trump told S that Trump didn't want anything, other than for Z to "do the right thing" on corruption.

This is NOT evidence that Trump (or most of his people) had communicated a prior quid pro quo demand to the Ukraine on release of the military assistance in exchange for a public announcement of an investigation of B/B. And it is certainly no evidence that the Ukraine had received a Quid Pro Quo demand on military assistance before or immediately after the July 25 call.

This is evidence is a mouse expected to carry an elephant of nonsense.

Except, of course, I'm not one gaslighting, am I?
Click to expand...

“ These are alleged "revelations" - they are unsupported claims by a couple of NYTimes journalists on what they were told by others who told them what they claim they gleaned from the reputed manuscript”

Same tired old Trumpster defelection. We’ve been hearing this excuse for three years. In the long run, it seldom bears out.
 
cpwill said:
If that is an accurate and honest depiction of what Bolton said, would you agree that would be pretty bad for Trump?
Click to expand...

No. I would agree that it's a he said, he said issue. Trump has denied every saying this to Bolton.

Perhaps Bolton should dig up a recording.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom