You want evidence? Bolton book outlines Trump is guilty

[Hypothetical]

I want to hear all the evidence.



Do you?

if the senate votes to do that, then I am fine with it... but I have absolutely no need to ask for them to do that, due to the way the house carried itself improperly.

basically , if they vote NOT to do that , I am completely fine with it... because of the house sham.

 

[Threegoofs]

Wait...

A news report from an anti-Trump biased media outlet of a claim by unknown people that Bolton included some sort of statement in a book that hasn't been published yet...

...is "DIRECT EVIDENCE"???

Don't be ridiculous.

Good point.

We need to hear his testimony under oath.

And there will be no claim of executive privilege.... the claim already exists in the public sphere.

 

[ludin]

And then no senator would be able to read the book or listen to any reporting on the book? LMAO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can't read the book it is in the middle of the audit. it is no out there for sale.
what part of this do you not understand?

 

[vegas giants]

not in the senate. i want to hear it in the house, as it should have been done. I am fine with that.

I don't even believe this is a worthwhile call for impeachment.

Ok. You dont wantbto hear all the evidence.


You want it hidden from the American people.


Got it. Thanks

 

[BlueTex]

Nothing is out there. the book has not been published it is currently going through audit.

Jesus.. it’s not an audit.. there is no obligation for the publisher to remove anything from the book.. it’s a review, not required by law, to make the PUBLISHER aware of anything that might be considered classified. The publisher has NO obligation to change one word..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike2810]

Ok. You dont wantbto hear all the evidence.


You want it hidden from the American people.


Got it. Thanks

How is having the evidence presented in the House hiding it from the American people?

 

[Hypothetical]

Ok. You dont wantbto hear all the evidence.


You want it hidden from the American people.


Got it. Thanks

LOL again you hear what you want.. i re-thought a better way to express what I meant. please recheck the post.

 

[Obscurity]

Nothing is out there. the book has not been published it is currently going through audit.

It's out now. His lawyer confirmed it was leaked - what do you suppose that means? He could have easily said "This is a misrepresentation" but he didn't.

Dude, get over it. It's -over-. This is beyond acceptable and you know if Trump were a D you'd be seeing red.

He has to resign.

 

[vegas giants]

How is having the evidence presented in the House hiding it from the American people?

Why start over when you dont need to?

 

[Hypothetical]

It's out now. His lawyer confirmed it was leaked - what do you suppose that means? He could have easily said "This is a misrepresentation" but he didn't.

Dude, get over it. It's -over-. This is beyond acceptable and you know if Trump were a D you'd be seeing red.

He has to resign.

nope, absolutely not. Bolton is not the end all be all of the truth here.

 

[What if...?]

Why?

Bolton is recognized by the Democrat-Socialists a war mongering Neo-Con who espouses ideas that have been dismissed by the Democrat-Socialists for years.

Why are the reports of the words written in an unpublished manuscript now considered to be 100% reliable?

Because they are consistent with earlier testimony.

Why hasn't Barr indicted them for perjury, if it's all a lie?

 

[ludin]

Jesus.. it’s not an audit.. there is no obligation for the publisher to remove anything from the book.. it’s a review, not required by law, to make the PUBLISHER aware of anything that might be considered classified. The publisher has NO obligation to change one word..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You once again prove you have no clue what you are talking about.

Bolton'''s manuscript leaks as memoir pre-orders begin on Amazon; Trump fires back | Fox News
The Times further claimed Bolton had shared a manuscript of his forthcoming book with "close associates" -- prompting Bolton's team to deny the claim, and assert that the National Security Council's [NSC's] review process of pending manuscripts is "corrupted" and prone to leaks.

A "pre-publication review" at the NSC, which functions as the White House's national security forum, is standard for any former government officials who held security clearances and publicly write or speak publicly about their official work. The review typically would focus on ferreting out any classified or sensitive material in advance of publication, and could take from days to months.

It is required by the NSC.
and yes if there is classified material it must be removed if it has not been unclassified.
learn what you are talking about before spouting off at other people.

The book has not been published.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Put him under oath

fine by me. I bet when he is asked directly under oath he sings a different tune. This is about book sales not the truth.

 

[calamity]

Trumpsters, suck on this....




DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Slam dunk, if this was a real trial and not a Republican cover-up.

 

[mike2810]

Why start over when you dont need to?

That is not answering the question. I challenged you on your statement on hiding evidence.

imo, the House did a rush job. Yes, the Senate could pick up the slack. Is building the case really the job of the Senate or the House?

In the end I would like Trump gone. We most likely will have to do it by elections.

 

[ludin]

Because they are consistent with earlier testimony.

Why hasn't Barr indicted them for perjury, if it's all a lie?

because they all testified they had no evidence.
so they didn't lie.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Bolton could have made just as much money on his book if he followed the perfect call narrative. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying he is just trying to profit if that was the case. But since he is saying what you don't want to hear, you just blow if off as book sales. :lol:

No he couldn't. Lefties will be falling over themselves to buy his book now. Wow did bolton sucker you guys right into his wallet.

 

[ludin]

nope, absolutely not. Bolton is not the end all be all of the truth here.

Just a few months ago just like comey he was demonized as a liar and untrustworthy by the left.
now all we have is gas lighting and virtue signalling that he is the epitome of virtue and honesty.

 

[What if...?]

because they all testified they had no evidence.
so they didn't lie.

Technically they said there was evidence they just couldn't provide it because their department heads were following trumps orders not to provide any evidence.

 

[ludin]

It's out now. His lawyer confirmed it was leaked - what do you suppose that means? He could have easily said "This is a misrepresentation" but he didn't.

Dude, get over it. It's -over-. This is beyond acceptable and you know if Trump were a D you'd be seeing red.

He has to resign.

No he doesn't have to resign.
a half ass leak that has 0 context is nothing.

we know the sycophants will eat it up and dump millions into bolton's pocket but
guess what no one else cares. the rest of society isn't so triggered on TDS.

bolton is playing the same thing that comey did. guess what? comey had nothing as well.
except the millions from TDS sycophants.

lol.

 

[ludin]

Technically they said there was evidence they just couldn't provide it because their department heads were following trumps orders not to provide any evidence.

That isn't what they said so why are you lying?

 

[ludin]

No he couldn't. Lefties will be falling over themselves to buy his book now. Wow did bolton sucker you guys right into his wallet.

same play book as comey. leak something that looks bad but turns out is another nothing burger but the TDS triggered crowd will be lining up out the door
or on amazon to pay their 25 bucks.

 

[Obscurity]

nope, absolutely not. Bolton is not the end all be all of the truth here.

It's over. It's over. This is the end game. Do you value our republic?

If not, then just say so.

 

[cabse5]

Trumpsters, suck on this....




DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Direct evidence that Trump wanted an investigation of Obama Administration officials and relatives and tied that investigation to Ukrainian aid? I don't doubt that happened. Trump didn't do anything wrong, there.

As much as you want Trump to investigate political rivals for the 2020 election, you still don't have any such evidence. In fact, all the public testimonials before the house intelligence committee said Trump said he was interested in happenings before the 2016 election.

Suck on that.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Only if the senate votes to do that. there is nothing that say they have to.

You do want them to, right? Seriously, why would you not?