• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

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

itstony

itstony

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
3,873
Reaction score
5,707
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
 
Sorry, Dupe, nothing to see here move along........................
 
itstony said:
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
Click to expand...

There should be one into the DNC, since they were linked to Ukraine interference into the 2016 election.
 
Mycroft said:
There should be one into the DNC, since they were linked to Ukraine interference into the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

whataboutism, Mycroft, does not take away that Trump abused the power of his office and committed OOJ by Congress.
 
itstony said:
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
Click to expand...

The NYT lies like this ALL the time.
 
itstony said:
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
Click to expand...

I just started a thread on this same topic. Maybe I can get a mod to merge the two.

This is actually blockbuster information that will prove exactly what the democrats have impeached Trump for.
 
jamesbyoung said:
whataboutism, Mycroft, does not take away that Trump abused the power of his office and committed OOJ by Congress.
Click to expand...

Not whataboutism. DNC corruption is directly mentioned. "...investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee." I simply pointed out why there should be such an investigation.

And there is zero evidence that Trump has abused his powers as President or obstructed anything. In case you don't know it, depending on a court to rule on an issue is not obstruction. It is a valid use of the judicial system.
 
itstony said:
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
Click to expand...

Here's what I want to know. How did the NY Times, the originator of this breaking story, happen to come across an alleged draft of Bolton's new book?
 
sources lol

should of, would of, could of lol

-VySky
 
HumblePi said:
is actually blockbuster information that will prove exactly what the democrats have impeached Trump for.
Click to expand...

What someone says in a book is not "evidence".
 
Mycroft said:
Not whataboutism. DNC corruption is directly mentioned. "...investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee." I simply pointed out why there should be such an investigation. And there is zero evidence that Trump has abused his powers as President or obstructed anything. In case you don't know it, depending on a court to rule on an issue is not obstruction. It is a valid use of the judicial system.
Click to expand...

Fake news Trump right media are trying to flip the story that Bolton tells by pointing at Biden while having three fingers pointing at Trump.

The American people are too well trained now on Trump lies and tactics. Won't work, Mycroft.
 
Roadvirus said:
What someone says in a book is not "evidence".
Click to expand...

Yes, it is evidence. It is not sworn testimony, however. When Bolton is called to the judiciary and intelligence committees for the hearing in the next two months and the next impeachment trial in May, he will be sworn.
 
itstony said:
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
Click to expand...

"Multiple sources..."

I had no idea so MANY people were never given a name.

Jim Lehrer got it right. Do NO story on anonymous sources and require confirmation or proof.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Yes, it is evidence. It is not sworn testimony, however. When Bolton is called to the judiciary and intelligence committees for the hearing in the next two months and the next impeachment trial in May, he will be sworn.
Click to expand...

It is not admissible evidence by itself.

The NYT says someone who has no name says a book they can't quote says..." is exactly nothing but the grotesque irresponsible and unprofessional contact by any newspaper.
 
Perhaps we should just ask Bolton.
 
HumblePi said:
First hand knowledge, an eye witness, so yes, it is evidence.
Click to expand...

No, it's not admissible evidence. Try reading the rules of evidence some time.
 
itstony said:
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
Click to expand...

Well, except that this story would be grounds to subpoena the "multiple unnamed source" who told the NYT the story, a new agency that didn't actually see corroborating evidence. So if the NYT wants to out their sources then we can start there.

But know, you don't get to upend a presidency on rumor.
 
Who’s the president? Provide me a United States Code that states that a president can’t hold aid! Because I was looking and nothing so provide it! Oh that’s right you want us to just believe you? What if we refuse. Jail us? You people are trying to get a fast pass to win and the republicans should actually wake up because you didn’t
 
joko104 said:
No, it's not admissible evidence. Try reading the rules of evidence some time.
Click to expand...

Try not to be so desperate to be significant when you're wrong. John Bolton needs to be called to testify, that's pretty clear, and when he does, his testimony will be entered in the record as evidence.
 
VySky said:
sources lol

should of, would of, could of lol

-VySky
Click to expand...

stupid gaslighting lol





Did you even bother to think about why NYT might lie about what Bolton wrote in his book, which is to be released soon thereby disproving any such lie?
 
HumblePi said:
I just started a thread on this same topic. Maybe I can get a mod to merge the two.

This is actually blockbuster information that will prove exactly what the democrats have impeached Trump for.
Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:
What someone says in a book is not "evidence".
Click to expand...

Roadvirus said:
What someone says in a book is not "evidence".
Click to expand...

It must be easy to win cases when you have sole discretion to declare what is evidence. It should tell you something that Trump's defenders are down to a mixture of gaslighting, pretending all the protections (lol) attached to a defendant in a criminal trial, and declaring things "not evidence" (while also stonewalling).

Every single witness's account has been consistent as they relate to what happened. The only gaps in the evidence result from Trump's stonewalling.






PS: yes, even in a criminal trial, it can be evidence depending on the use (prior inconsistent statement, prior consistent statement, state of mind around the time written, and I'm sure plenty more). But this isn't a criminal trial.

PSS: speaking of stonewalling, Trump couldn't do that in a criminal case. All he could do is not himself testify. Otherwise, prosecutors would get the warrants they needed and take what they wanted. Wouldn't it be convenient if protections criminal defendants in court get applied to Trump, but not all the drawbacks?

Why, I think I stumbled on something.

:thinking
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom