• 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

W_Heisenberg said:
This isn't a rule, okay? There is nothing preventing the Senate from demanding ALL available evidence, even outside the scope of the House's materials, in search for the truth.

The only obstacle to this is not some rule, or law, or tradition; but rather, rank partisanship.

The Senate can decide to allow witnesses to testify during the trial, witnesses who can provide FIRST-HAND testimony related to the allegations being made, even though these witnesses did not testify during the House inquiry.
Click to expand...

There was no rule against the House doing so, they chose not to, I guess that was rank partisanship as well?
 
humbolt said:
If further evidence becomes available, the House has the option to present it with additional articles detailing it.
Click to expand...

Yes.

The Senate is under no obligation to bolster what the House has represented as sufficient.
Click to expand...

This is not true.

Let me explain why:

This is the oath the Senators took when they assumed office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

U.S. Senate: Oath Taking

This is the special oath they took when assuming the dual roles of judge and jury for this Senate trial:

"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?" Roberts asked senators.

Senators take oath for impeachment trial | TheHill

It is because of these two oaths, the Senators themselves have an obligation to fully reveal the truth of the questions being asked during this Senate trial.

Besides, given that impeachment is a political act, and given that the Senate is a political opponent of the House in this instance, why should the Senate help the House with it's clearly weak case?
Click to expand...

Because it's the right thing to do, that's why.
 
sjmay said:
...the guy literally said, if Bolton has something to say, don't wait for the Senate...go say it.

You don't think the Senators would watch that?
Click to expand...

This is my point: I think it is more than obvious that Lindsey Graham is trying to get the manuscript into the proceedings instead of live testimony.
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
There was no rule against the House doing so, they chose not to, I guess that was rank partisanship as well?
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Trump has some responsibility to participate in this process, and that Trump's act of blocking the witnesses impaired the House's ability to advance the case?
 
sjmay said:
You are dense today aren't you
Click to expand...

I can be a jerk too, sjmay. I have the infractions and warnings to prove it. Do you really want to go down that road?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This is my point: I think it is more than obvious that Lindsey Graham is trying to get the manuscript into the proceedings instead of live testimony.
Click to expand...

So what if he is?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Why is it so hard for you to understand that Trump has some responsibility to participate in this process, and that Trump's act of blocking the witnesses impaired the House's ability to advance the case?
Click to expand...

Bolton wasnt blocked.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This is my point: I think it is more than obvious that Lindsey Graham is trying to get the manuscript into the proceedings instead of live testimony.
Click to expand...

Graham, yes, but the other Senator, literally told Bolton to go to talk to the media....etc, Live testimony or not, people will listen.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Why is it so hard for you to understand that Trump has some responsibility to participate in this process, and that Trump's act of blocking the witnesses impaired the House's ability to advance the case?
Click to expand...

He has the responsibility to protect the office of the President from overreach, you are upset that he did that, and that the Dems instead of fighting for what they thought was right, tucked tail.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I can be a jerk too, sjmay. I have the infractions and warnings to prove it. Do you really want to go down that road?
Click to expand...

I wasn't being a jerk, I was pointing out it that must be very early in the morning where you are to have missed that the Senator telling Bolton to go talk to a live mic, was trying NOT to get live testimony.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
So you don't think it is funny that Graham is trying so hard to prevent witnesses from testifying in person?
Click to expand...

No. First of all, we dont know what is in Boltons book. We only know what someone told the NYT was in Boltons book. Second, there is nothing stopping Bolton from clearing up the issue on his own. There is nothing stopping him from making a statement as to the accuracy of the story or giving his side
 
Former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly tells Sarasota crowd ’I believe John Bolton’ - News - Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Sarasota, FL

Wow.

Asked if Bolton - Trump’s former national security adviser - should testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, Kelly said he supports calling witnesses.

President Donald Trump is denying that he told former National Security Adviser John Bolton he wanted to withhold military aid from Ukraine until the country launched investigations into Joe Biden and his son, allegations that Bolton levies in his new book, according to news reports.

But one of Trump’s former top aides told a Sarasota crowd Monday evening that if the reporting on what Bolton wrote is accurate, he believes Bolton.

“If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton,” said retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff for 18 months.

Kelly spoke Monday at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall as part of the Ringling College Library Association Town Hall lecture series. The general worked with Bolton during his time as chief of staff, which ended in early 2019. Kelly said Bolton is an honest person.

“Every single time I was with him ... he always gave the president the unvarnished truth,” Kelly said of Bolton, who has become a figure of intense interest in the impeachment inquiry.

According to the New York Times, Bolton writes in a new book that Trump personally told him he did not want to release nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until the country investigated Democrats, including the former vice president and his son.

The House impeached Trump last year, alleging the president abused his power by leveraging the military aid to try and benefit himself politically.

Trump denies ever tying to the aid to the investigations.
Click to expand...
 
Fletch said:
I agree with Kelly on that. Bolton doesnt seem like the kind of guy who would completely lie about a conversation with the president.
Click to expand...

You guys are funny.
 
Fletch said:
No. First of all, we dont know what is in Boltons book. We only know what someone told the NYT was in Boltons book. Second, there is nothing stopping Bolton from clearing up the issue on his own. There is nothing stopping him from making a statement as to the accuracy of the story or giving his side
Click to expand...

You're right. We only know what someone told NYT was in Bolton's book. That's one of the reasons why he should testify. Further, there's also nothing stopping the Senate from calling Bolton to testify, live, in-person, before the Senate, and under oath. And that kind of interview would be far more credible than a media interview.

There is no compelling reason to not have Bolton testify, other than you think he will implicate Trump, and oh yeah, **** the Democrats.

Those are the two reasons.
 
sjmay said:
He has the responsibility to protect the office of the President from overreach, you are upset that he did that
Click to expand...

Trump is not protecting the office from overreach, he's protecting himself from being removed from office. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of oversight over the Executive branch, and the power to remove the President from office, this process necessarily means that Congress also has the power to investigate the President.

I know Trump's fascist, authoritarian-minded supporters don't like this, but that is what the Framers of our Constitution put in place, okay?

Under very limited circumstances the President can prevent information from being transmitted to Congress.

These are the circumstances:

The Limits of Executive Privilege

The current state of the law of presidential privilege, described more fully below, may be briefly summarized as follows:

The constitutionally based presidential communications privilege is presumptively valid when asserted.

There is no requirement that the president must have seen or even been aware of the documents over which he or she claims privilege.

The communication(s) in question must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power” that requires direct presidential decision-making. The privilege is limited to the core constitutional powers of the president, such as the power to appoint and remove executive officials, the commander-in-chief power, the sole authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and the pardon power. The privilege does not cover matters handled within the broader executive branch beyond the Executive Office of the President. Thus, it does not cover decision-making regarding the implementation of laws that delegate policymaking authority to the heads of departments and agencies, or which allow presidential delegations of authority.

The subject communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by the president or a close White House adviser. The adviser must be in “operational proximity” to the president, which effectively limits coverage of the privilege to the administrative boundaries of the Executive Office of the President and the White House.

The privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and is unavailable elsewhere to an appropriate investigatory authority. The president may not prevent such a showing of need by granting absolute immunity to witnesses who would otherwise provide the information necessary to show that “important” evidence exists.
Click to expand...

This is NOT, I repeat NOT what the President is doing.

The President is preventing nearly ANY and ALL information from being transmitted to Congress, and that is unconstitutional.

You don't know this because Fox News has been lying to you, day in, and day out, since Trump first contested the McGahn subpoena.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
You're right. We only know what someone told NYT was in Bolton's book. That's one of the reasons why he should testify. Further, there's also nothing stopping the Senate from calling Bolton to testify, live, in-person, before the Senate, and under oath. And that kind of interview would be far more credible than a media interview.

There is no compelling reason to not have Bolton testify, other than you think he will implicate Trump, and oh yeah, **** the Democrats.

Those are the two reasons.
Click to expand...

Bolton should confirm or deny the report. If he confirms it, he will likely be called to testify. If he denies it, its over. There is no reason he shouldnt do that.
 
Fletch said:
Bolton wasnt blocked.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter Fletch.

They don't need to litigate over every single witness. They are all using the same legal argument. The House need only win the McGahn case.

Dems instead of fighting for what they thought was right, tucked tail.
Click to expand...

They didn't tuck tail. This is the lie people like Hannity want you to believe.

It does not make logical sense to litigate the same issue over and over. The need only win the McGahn case.
 
Fletch said:
Bolton should confirm or deny the report. If he confirms it, he will likely be called to testify. If he denies it, its over. There is no reason he shouldnt do that.
Click to expand...

Yes! I'm glad you almost agree!

At least you are close to agreeing that Bolton should...eventually...testify.

It took a while, but we are almost there.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Then I have you confused with another poster
Click to expand...

Ah. Well let me help you. When you accused me in post 197 of changing my positions to oppose Trump, the poster you were talking to was me.

In posts 294, and 303, when I responded to your accusation by pointing out the many - many - positions that conservatives and the GOP had changed their positions to support Trump, but which I continued to hold, I was the poster responding to you. So, in post 315, when you chose to complain about the fact that someone had responded to you accusing them of changing their positions to oppose Trump, that person was me. :)

It is ironic you would complain about that now, because I tried to give you an out in post 213, and your response in post 217 was to double down on the accusation that you would later complain about me addressing. :)


all I see from you are biased comments that don't tell the real story of Donald Trump
Click to expand...


I've linked the posts above where I laid out where Trump had taken positions opposed by Republicans and Conservatives in general in previous administrations. The fact that I accurately described Trump is demonstrated by little better than your utter unwillingness to address any of those points. But, please :) Show me where I lied.


the actual results do and it is actual results not your perception or principles that matter.
Click to expand...

Hard to think of a better slogan for the pro-Trump "conservative" movement. "Principles Don't Matter".

Of course, that's hard to square with your earlier (and, now, we know, false) claim that:

Conservative said:
I have no loyalty to a party but loyalty to an ideology
Click to expand...

Since, as soon as someone points out to you that the party in question has violated the ideology in question, your response is to sneer at them about their "principles".


Come back, man :(. Conservatism is about timeless truths, not subordinating principles to defend a politician - any politician - for temporary partisan advantage.


There is absolutely no justification for Trump being removed from office, you know it, I know it, and the general public knows it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There is indeed justification for Trump to be removed from office. Is it sufficient to the task? Eh, I think that's debatable - people I respect come down on both sides of the issue, and there are strong arguments in favor of both. Meanwhile, a little over 50% of Americans support impeaching Trump, and a little under 50% support removing him.


Since day one that Trump took office, Democrats have been trying to overturn the election results and have set a dangerous precedence
Click to expand...

Yup. That doesn't excuse Trump from giving them the ability to do so by abusing his power.

The Articles of Impeachment are a joke.
Click to expand...

They were rushed through in an openly partisan process, sure.


One side acting badly doesn't mean the other side is in the right.


Now you can stick to your principles but in November we will have a choice, Trump or one of the Democratic Candidates. As I did in 2016 I will make the right choice for me, my family, and the country, TRUMP!!
Click to expand...

:shrug: okay. There are perfectly good reasons for voting for Trump. The argument that he's the lesser of two evils is a pretty good one. Trump has turned over Judicial nominations to the Federalist Society (a major plus), passed a fairly generic Republican tax cut (somewhat of a plus), There simply isn't a good argument for defending many (if not most) of Trump's behaviors, actions, and abuses from Conservative or Christian principles. If you abandon those in order to defend his behaviors, actions, and abuses, well, they aren't really your principles - they are your preferences.
 
cpwill said:
Ah. Well let me help you. When you accused me in post 197 of changing my positions to oppose Trump, the poster you were talking to was me.


I've linked the posts above where I laid out where Trump had taken positions opposed by Republicans and Conservatives in general in previous administrations. The fact that I accurately described Trump is demonstrated by little better than your utter unwillingness to address any of those points. But, please :) Show me where I lied.




Hard to think of a better slogan for the pro-Trump "conservative" movement. "Principles Don't Matter".

Of course, that's hard to square with your earlier (and, now, we know, false) claim that:



Since, as soon as someone points out to you that the party in question has violated the ideology in question, your response is to sneer at them about their "principles".


Come back, man :(. Conservatism is about timeless truths, not subordinating principles to defend a politician - any politician - for temporary partisan advantage.




Incorrect. There is indeed justification for Trump to be removed from office. Is it sufficient to the task? Eh, I think that's debatable - people I respect come down on both sides of the issue, and there are strong arguments in favor of both. Meanwhile, a little over 50% of Americans support impeaching Trump, and a little under 50% support removing him.




Yup. That doesn't excuse Trump from giving them the ability to do so by abusing his power.



They were rushed through in an openly partisan process, sure.


One side acting badly doesn't mean the other side is in the right.




:shrug: okay. There are perfectly good reasons for voting for Trump. The argument that he's the lesser of two evils is a pretty good one. Trump has turned over Judicial nominations to the Federalist Society (a major plus), passed a fairly generic Republican tax cut (somewhat of a plus), There simply isn't a good argument for defending many (if not most) of Trump's behaviors, actions, and abuses from Conservative or Christian principles. If you abandon those in order to defend his behaviors, actions, and abuses, well, they aren't really your principles - they are your preferences.
Click to expand...

Right, my preference it to vote for the lesser of the two evils although I don't believe Trump is evil. The conservative principles implemented, tax cuts, judges, strong military trump the charges of personal behavior issues. I don't abandon by principles, I will temper my principles based upon the choices I am given. I see no reason to vote for any of the Democrats running and plenty of reason to vote for Trump. Whether or not I defend his behavior is irrelevant, I am however defending his results which are what really matters, results over rhetoric.

As I have pointed out I am half way through the book The United States of Trump, I suggest you read it and find out what is fact or opinion regarding Trump. Right now you are buying one side of the story, I am finding things I never knew. This is a non partisan, non biased written not to support Trump but rather to explain him. There are certainly inconsistencies in what you are hearing vs reality of who Trump really is.

The basic principles of Trump is that he Trusts no one and that destroys the liberal narrative about Russia or Ukraine, He doesn't even trust his own kids which supports the claim that he wouldn't support Russia even if they tried to influence the election in 2016.

Ukraine to me is a non issue as are the articles of impeachment. Bolton is trying to sell books but I do find it interesting that the left now wants to believe him when they have never believed a word of his in the past. I couldn't care less about Ukraine as they got the money and got the military aid that Obama never delivered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom