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

[vegas giants]

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.

Good. Then you want to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney

 

[cpwill]

No. I would agree that it's a he said, he said issue.

Yeah - that's usually the case when you have a witness.

Fortunately, there's a way to check that out - put Bolton under oath.

If the guy's own national security advisor is saying "yeah - that's what we were doing", then, yeah, that's a pretty damming blow.

 

[cpwill]

Please provide a quotation wherein Bolton's lawyer confirmed that all the characterizations in the New York Times article is accurate.

If the characterization is accurate, would that be bad?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MTAtech]

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.

Trump also denied knowing Parnas but there he was on the video having dinner with him at a fundraiser.

That's what testimony is about. Bolton has no reason to lie while Trump has every reason to lie. Trump went on TV before our eyes and urged an investigation of the Bidens. That's consistent with everything else other witnesses have said.

Juries decide truth among conflicting testimony. I suggest putting Bolton on the stand and swearing him in under penalty of perjury. If Trump wants to take the stand, like Clinton did, he can.

 

[Obscurity]

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.

Oh FFS Mycroft just can it already. It's supported by so much evidence. Testimony, timelines, etc.

Just ****ing can it. Admit it; you don't care, because keeping dems out of power is more important than the constitution itself.

 

[cpwill]

Oh FFS Mycroft just can it already. It's supported by so much evidence. Testimony, timelines, etc.

Just ****ing can it. Admit it; you don't care, because keeping dems out of power is more important than the constitution itself.

... this isn't a violation of the constitutional limits on power. What Trump did was legal - just incredibly dangerous and wrong.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Nope. It again appears that Schiff has a problem (beyond being truthful) with affording the president due process. I guess you do too. If Schiff had done the work before and faithfully followed constitutionally defined due process, he wouldn't have the problems he does now. And you would be able to point to something substantial beyond your mere assertion that Trump is the problem.

It is very simple: there aren't any due process rights that Trump has that allows him to forbid senior aides from testifying before Congress, and based on previous Court rulings Trump's act of forbidding senior aides from testifying before Congress is also unconstitutional.

And, here is me pointing to something substantial beyond my mere assertion that Trump is the problem...

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.

--

A Presidential Claim of Privilege Cannot Provide Absolute Immunity to Congressional Subpoenas

The executive argued to the district court that present and past senior advisers to the president are absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. The district court unequivocally rejected this position:

"The Executive cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes absolute immunity for senior presidential advisors in this or any other context …. In fact, there is Supreme Court authority that is all but conclusive on this question and that powerfully suggests that such advisors do not enjoy absolute immunity. The Court therefore rejects the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides."

So, what is your rebuttal?

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah - that's usually the case when you have a witness.

Fortunately, there's a way to check that out - put Bolton under oath.

If the guy's own national security advisor is saying "yeah - that's what we were doing", then, yeah, that's a pretty damming blow.

Putting Bolton under oath won't solve anything. People lie under oath. Just ask Brennan, Clapper, Comey, etc.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

What makes anyone think Roberts can rule on executive privilege? He's not acting as the Supreme Court.

You can't think past your own blind hatred of Democrats, can you?

The answer is very simple:

The President could allow Roberts to rule on issues of executive privilege during the Senate trial. The White House lawyers are there, in the room, they could all hash out together, right now.

 

[vegas giants]

Putting Bolton under oath won't solve anything. People lie under oath. Just ask Brennan, Clapper, Comey, etc.

Let him lie.


But at least ask him the question

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Since the Republicans probably won't let Bolton testify, maybe the Democrat should buy a copy of the book and try to enter it into evidence but Moscow Mitch would undoubtedly block that too.

This is a good idea.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No, I don't think that is so. There will be head in sand syndrome, and then the claim that Bolton is just trying to sell books.

We'll see I guess.

 

[Obscurity]

... this isn't a violation of the constitutional limits on power. What Trump did was legal - just incredibly dangerous and wrong.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

It's soliciting a thing of value.

And if it's not illegal, like you said, it's incredibly dangerous, and wrong.

So you need to start calling your senators and demand witnesses and documents. We need the truth. This is America, we don't have ****ing monarchies here.

 

[Obscurity]

Putting Bolton under oath won't solve anything. People lie under oath. Just ask Brennan, Clapper, Comey, etc.

It makes it EVIDENCE.

Dude, get over it. Your POTUS is corrupt and a conman. This is beyond acceptable AND YOU KNOW It.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No Bolton Book is out yet. This smacks of dirty tricks by the Times of NY .

Based on the comments of Bolton's lawyer and Bolton's adviser it is likely this isn't just "fake news."

But I guess I'll just have to wait for Fox & Friends or Hannity to inform you of this fact when they begin attacking Bolton.

 

[humbolt]

It is very simple: there aren't any due process rights that Trump has that allows him to forbid senior aides from testifying before Congress, and based on previous Court rulings Trump's act of forbidding senior aides from testifying before Congress is also unconstitutional.

And, here is me pointing to something substantial beyond my mere assertion that Trump is the problem...

The Limits of Executive Privilege



So, what is your rebuttal?

A judge is required to determine the merits of an executive privilege claim. Thomas Jefferson was involved in such a conflict. Did you or Congress go to the courts for such a resolution? Nope. Therefore your contention that Trump is the problem is without any legal merit, and represents your personal opinion alone. It could be that Trump is incorrect, but without an unbiased, legally binding ruling, we won't know.

You can read about this in any number of discussions of this topic, and what I've mentioned above has been followed to a just settlement. It's what happens when due process is followed.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Ain't no ****ing evidence gonna sway the cult.

They just need 4 Republican Senators to put the country over party.

 

[Mycroft]

Oh FFS Mycroft just can it already. It's supported by so much evidence. Testimony, timelines, etc.

Just ****ing can it. Admit it; you don't care, because keeping dems out of power is more important than the constitution itself.

LOL!!

I'm sure Schiffty agrees with you. I'm sure he'll come out and say pretty much the same thing as you just said here, except he'll be saying it to the WH defense team.

I'm also sure the Senators will recognize such an outburst for what it really is...the last gasp of someone who is seeing all their hopes and desires slip through his fingers...again.

Heck, remember when people said that the Mueller nonsense was supported by "so much evidence"?

LOL!! All I can do is laugh.

 

[cpwill]

It's soliciting a thing of value.

Maybe. I am pretty sketchy on claims that information counts as a donation-in-kind.

And if it's not illegal, like you said, it's incredibly dangerous, and wrong.

Yup. And, if/when the next Democrat president decides to respond in kind... well... that is pretty much how the Roman Republic self-destructed.

 

[cpwill]

LOL!!

I'm sure Schiffty agrees with you. I'm sure he'll come out and say pretty much the same thing as you just said here, except he'll be saying it to the WH defense team.

I'm also sure the Senators will recognize such an outburst for what it really is...the last gasp of someone who is seeing all their hopes and desires slip through his fingers...again.

Heck, remember when people said that the Mueller nonsense was supported by "so much evidence"?

LOL!! All I can do is laugh.

Bolton is a credible voice with the placement and access to speak with authority. If you can't accept that, then that's on no one but you.

 

[Conservative]

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.

Get used to seeing more of this

Joy Villa wears pro-Trump gown to Grammys: '''Impeached and re-elected''' | Fox News

 

[Dans La Lune]

They just need 4 Republican Senators to put the country over party.

Keep walking. It’s never going happen. Don’t pin any hopes on any Republicans.

 

[Obscurity]

Maybe. I am pretty sketchy on claims that information counts as a donation-in-kind.



Yup. And, if/when the next Democrat president decides to respond in kind... well... that is pretty much how the Roman Republic self-destructed.

So, are you calling your senators?

If not, you're enabling the problem.

 

[Obscurity]

Bolton is a credible voice with the placement and access to speak with authority. If you can't accept that, then that's on no one but you.

And this will enable a terrible precedent, a completely terrible precedent. This is a disaster for our democratic institutions.

 

[poweRob]

They just need 4 Republican Senators to put the country over party.

That's just to allow witnesses and documents. They'll need 20 to remove. Which would really be country over party.