You want evidence? Bolton book outlines Trump is guilty

[Dayton3]

I don’t know, I saw articles of impeachment delivered to the senate.. Was this all a prank by Pelosi??.. dang it, I fell for it

The original impeachment inquiry was never authorized by a vote of the entire House of Representatives as required. Thus the impeachment is not legitimate.

 

[cabse5]

I don’t know, I saw articles of impeachment delivered to the senate.. Was this all a prank by Pelosi??.. dang it, I fell for it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The senate should, summarily, dismiss this impeachment based on a phone call conspiracy theory.
Impeachments based on conspiracy theories are illegitimate. That's why more witnesses are asked for in this particular conspiracy theory impeachment. To prove the crime(s) the articles accuse Trump of doing (which the house hasn't done).

 

[humbolt]

You may not be aware of it but the Senate has the ability and the authority to subpoena witnesses and all relevant documents. The Senate has the power to move forward and discover all the facts and ultimately know the truth. I'm all for that.

If Trump is a righteous, honest, innocent and honorable person let the truth tell it. The Senate now has the opportunity to let the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth out. It's their turn. No one is holding them back. Why would they not want to know all the facts? Why would they not want the People to know all the facts?

I'm aware of all of that. Are you aware that the House had the very same opportunity? The witness issue predates a rumor about a book by Bolton.

 

[humbolt]

Suddenly, Trumpworld turns on one of its own. Again. Anyway....

I've always seen Bolton as a warmonger and deeply wrong about how to handle foreign policy. That hasn't changed.

I never thought he was a liar. That hasn't changed.

Suddenly Bolton is a font of truth. You have no idea what he may have written, but whatever it is, you're sure It's the truth.

 

[bubbabgone]

The curious thing is that Bolton's manuscript was said to have been submitted to the NSC for their review.
Isn't Ciaramella back in the NSC? Or is he CIA again.

 

[ludin]

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

This is not a legal trial remember? this is political that is what we keep hearing.
so again tell me why should they?

that is the job of the house not the senate.

 

[BlueTex]

The House had a way. They could've issued subpoenas and gone to court to have them enforced, except that they would've had to allow the witnesses legal counsel - something the House had refused to allow. That's called denial of due process, and That's at least part of the reason the House should have to do it over again.

Nobody watching is buying this BS any more.. The house went to court and the administration lost..

You are suggesting that every subpoena should be allowed to go to federal court, an appeal to a circuit court then an appeal to the Supreme Court.

We all see this for the BS it is..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

Sorry, you literally need to stop watching Fox News. It's detrimental to your mental health.

you concession is noted.
this is what happens when leftist have no argument.
they deflect.

 

[cabse5]

Direct evidence - from John Bolton.

Sorry.

checkmate.

If the republicans ignore this, they will have destroyed our constitution.

Direct evidence of what?

 

[Obscurity]

you concession is noted.
this is what happens when leftist have no argument.
they deflect.

You mean, right wingers refuse to hear the evidence, because their vile constituency is upset about how normal people view their sickening president?

Yeah.

Clutch your pearls.

The democracy dies thanks to you people.

 

[Hypothetical]

You mean, right wingers refuse to hear the evidence, because their vile constituency is upset about how normal people view their sickening president?

Yeah.

Clutch your pearls.

The democracy dies thanks to you people.

incorrect. we have heard all the evidence and found that to this point, there is none.


difference between us and the Dems... we don't count hearsay as evidence.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The original impeachment inquiry was never authorized by a vote of the entire House of Representatives as required. Thus the impeachment is not legitimate.

:lamo You are totally talking out of your ass.

Show (w/links) where in the Constitution there is support for your completely idiotic notion.

 

[Obscurity]

Direct evidence of what?

Trump ordering political investigations for personal benefit, and in so doing illegally withholding congressionally apportioned funding.

 

[Dayton3]

You mean, right wingers refuse to hear the evidence, because their vile constituency is upset about how normal people view their sickening president?

Yeah.

Clutch your pearls.

The democracy dies thanks to you people.

How does "democracy die"?

There is still going to be a general election 9 months from now.

And off year elections in 2022.

And so forth. As long as people have an opportunity to vote we still have a democratic republic.

 

[vegas giants]

Direct evidence of what?

Abuse of power

 

[vegas giants]

There's nothing for Roberts to rule on. Can you point to a page number, paragraph, and a sentence, and provide a direct quote?

Call the witnesses. If they are not relevant leave that to Roberts

 

[cabse5]

This is not a legal trial remember? this is political that is what we keep hearing.
so again tell me why should they?

that is the job of the house not the senate.

I hear this all the time...Impeachments are political... Why are impeachments political? The founders thought they were guarding against political impeachments.

 

[Dayton3]

Abuse of power

How did the president abuse his power?

 

[Lutherf]

Trumpsters, suck on this....




DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Direct evidence of what? If Trump was asking for Ukranian assistance with regard to 2016 it's evidence of something we already know and was announced to the public back in April. If it's evidence of something tied SPECIFICALLY to 2020 then we have yet to see ANYTHING that supports that accusation, including the well timed Bolton leak.

 

[BlueTex]

The original impeachment inquiry was never authorized by a vote of the entire House of Representatives as required. Thus the impeachment is not legitimate.

I suppose you can point out in the constitution or house rules where this is required


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vegas giants]

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.

The job of a trial.in the senate is a search for the truth.


Hear the all the evidence

 

[cabse5]

Abuse of power

No. What is Bolton's book direct evidence of? That is what I asked Obscurity.

 

[humbolt]

1. Show proof (with link/s) of Bolton’s supposed lies.
2. Go back and read my post. I didn’t say Bolton is telling the truth. Only that he is not known for lying.

1. "Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs, and possibly for deception where that’s appropriate,” Bolton said. - During an interview with Judge Napolitano.

2. When one claims somebody is not known for lying, they're implying that the someone tells the truth. Or are you attempting to suggest that truth or falsity Isn't a binary question?

 

[Risky Thicket]

This is not a legal trial remember? this is political that is what we keep hearing.
so again tell me why should they?

that is the job of the house not the senate.

Then tell me what the Senate's responsibility is in the impeachment process?

 

[BlueTex]

:lamo You are totally talking out of your ass.

Show (w/links) where in the Constitution there is support for your completely idiotic notion.

Rush said it .. qed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk