• 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!

You want evidence? Bolton book outlines Trump is guilty

humbolt said:
If it was sufficient then, certainly it should be sufficient now. Or are you saying the House acted precipitously, without sufficient evidence of a crime?
Click to expand...

You think that is how trials are held? New evidence or witnesses are introduced in trials everyday.
 
Carleen said:
Of course you would. We don’t need witnesses or documents that would prove Trump’s innocence would we? He will only be impeached once. Acquittal in the Senate does not remove his impeachment. Enjoy your evening. The question part of this trial will be interesting.
Click to expand...

Impeachment by the House is as meaningful to Trump as it was to Clinton. Without a conviction, It's an empty, partisan gesture in this instance. There was no bipartisan vote in the House.

I'm not watching this event. I have more immediate affairs to address. I'll settle for what I can read later in the day. I believe the conclusion was known months ago, and a large part of that conclusion is based on the actions of the House. Perhaps if it had been less partisan...
 
vegas giants said:
We can just do it now
Click to expand...

Hold up a trial for months on a document nobody has even seen or verified? Yeah, lets spend millions on something we don't even know exist. That makes sense.

Sounds more like a planned BS comment timed just for a reaction, from an undisclosed source to bolster fake claims for witnesses
 
Condor060 said:
Hold up a trial for months on a document nobody has even seen or verified? Yeah, lets spend millions on something we don't even know exist. That makes sense.

Sounds more like a planned BS comment timed just for a reaction, from an undisclosed source to bolster fake claims for witnesses
Click to expand...

Or we can take an hour and ask Bolton directly.


Easy peasy lemon squeezy
 
Da Mole said:
So, your saying that if someone says it, it must be accepted as gospel. Well, I say he is innocent until proven guilty! Believe it!
Click to expand...

The right has been whining that none of the witnesses during the impeachment were direct witnesses.

Okay, let's call Bolton to testify, he said he would at trial.

He is a direct witnesses.

You (the right) complained about no direct witnesses, and now you got one. You can't complain anymore about a direct witness.

Otherwise someone might believe you are a partisan hack, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?
 
vegas giants said:
Or we can take an hour and ask Bolton directly.


Easy peasy lemon squeezy
Click to expand...

Now why didn't I think of that. Lets just go down to Boltons house and see if he will comment on whats in his book that just hit number 17 on Amazons best seller list right after the anonymous claim to see if he will give away the goods.

Good luck.
 
iguanaman said:
Who your side tried to get to testify dozens of times.
Click to expand...

You mean the guy Schiff said would testify until it was uncovered that the WB was working with Schiff staff and then Schiff decided he couldn't testify.

You mean that guy?
 
veritas1 said:
Why is Bolton's assertion now considered evidence? Isn't it a bit curious that he'd write a book now and that the NYT would be making his allegations public now? I'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with Trump removing him and not giving him the war he so ardently craves. It's amazing what hate and $2M will make people do. All that said, as Dershowitz pointed out, even if Trump did what Bolton claims, it does not qualify as an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Bolton's testimony, under oath, will be considered evidence. But, so will Mulvaney's, etc.

Let them testify, and see who has the most convincing testimony.

The stake are astronomical, and the spotlight of history will be shining brightly upon the witnesses testimony.

The incentive, therefore, is to tell the truth. If there are conflicting testimonies, they can be dealt with details of their testimonies, contemporaneous notes, confirmation of others who were told about it by the witness during the time the events in question occurred, and so forth

IN other words, lets have a real trial. To do anything else will render the vote meaningless in the eyes of history.
 
humbolt said:
You might be incapable of following a conversation, and I'm being generous by including the remote possibility that you aren't.
Click to expand...

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

Congratulations. You want the last word? Go for it. You bore me.
 
iguanaman said:
You think that is how trials are held? New evidence or witnesses are introduced in trials everyday.
Click to expand...

Only under very special circumstances for the prosecution that doesn't obscure discovery. For example, as rebuttal to a defense witness.

They are not allowed in most cases because the defense hasn't has the chance to depose the witness and it tramples the rights of discovery for the defense.

No surprises.
 
Condor060 said:
Now why didn't I think of that. Lets just go down to Boltons house and see if he will comment on whats in his book that just hit number 17 on Amazons best seller list right after the anonymous claim to see if he will give away the goods.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

See how easy it is to call a witness!
 
Condor060 said:
uh, just an FYI, the WORLD has been calling Boltons attorney every second since this revelation.

Guess what the answer is?

No comment
Click to expand...

Uh.....put him under oath. Duh
 
vegas giants said:
Uh.....put him under oath. Duh
Click to expand...

You have no committee to do that. And the Senate isn't going to hear just one witness. Republicans will vote for dozens and this will end up going on for months, costing millions, to find out nothing in his book even says it.

Just an FYI, the book doesn't even get released until the WH clears it.
 
Condor060 said:
You have no committee to do that. And the Senate isn't going to hear just one witness. Republicans will vote for dozens and this will end up going on for months, costing millions, to find out nothing in his book even says it.

Just an FYI, the book doesn't even get released until the WH clears it.
Click to expand...

Predictions!!!!!


Your crystal ball is cloudy.....and wrong. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Predictions!!!!!


Your crystal ball is cloudy.....and wrong. Lol
Click to expand...

Based on ALL of the anonymous, unnamed, undisclosed source claims made against Trump have a failure rate of 100% over 3 years, nobody really thinks there is anything like that in the book.

If Democrats and the Liberal media hadn't cried wolf a few thousand times against Trump, It might mean something.
 
Condor060 said:
Based on ALL of the anonymous, unnamed, undisclosed source claims made against Trump have a failure rate of 100% over 3 years, nobody really thinks there is anything like that in the book.

If Democrats and the Liberal media hadn't cried wolf a few thousand times against Trump, It might mean something.
Click to expand...

Let's call Bolton and find out. Easy peasy
 
veritas1 said:
Dershowitz has made intense study of the relevant cases and history since then and arrived at a different conclusion. He didn't simply blow in the wind and change 180 degrees from 1998 like Pelosi and Nadler. Remember, too, that Dershowitz is not a conservative or Trump partisan. He has no skin in the game and, in fact, has been castigated by the MSM as expected. That makes his presentation all the more powerful.
Click to expand...

Josh Marshall:
"To put it baldly, if it’s a topic and area of study you know nothing about and after a few weeks of cramming you decide that basically everyone who’s studied the question is wrong, there’s a very small chance you’ve rapidly come upon a great insight and a very great likelihood you’re an ignorant and self-regarding asshole."
 
humbolt said:
You're repeating yourself. You can claim that 2 + 2 = 5 all day long, and you'll be just as wrong every time. The witnesses and evidence from the House are all there. Again I'll ask - because you haven't answered yet - is the House's evidence insufficient?
Click to expand...

Not to me. But I don't have a Senate vote and I am not the one yammering from the Senate or the WH that there are not enough direct evidence witnesses while denying the opportunity to hear from more direct evidence witnesses.

Strange, the Dems are not afraid of what more direct evidence witnesses would say. Why is the GOP afraid of it?
 
humbolt said:
You're repeating yourself. You can claim that 2 + 2 = 5 all day long, and you'll be just as wrong every time. The witnesses and evidence from the House are all there. Again I'll ask - because you haven't answered yet - is the House's evidence insufficient?
Click to expand...

Your question was probably rhetorical, but to dems, Trump is guilty all day, every day...There really doesn't need to be evidence. The premise that Trump is evil and a liar is sufficient.

What the dems are trying to accomplish, now, IMO, is convincing the rest of the country Trump is guilty of this conspiracy theory derived from a phone call impeachment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom