• 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

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...

Yeah, I'm sure it was mere coincidence that both times he sided against the Democrats. As far as the argument itself, the vast majority of legal experts do not support it.

He actually said himself that he's not implying that the Senate is not "legally bound" to the arguments that impeachment requires a crime.
Now, I’m not here arguing that the current distinguished members of the Senate are in any way bound, legally bound, by Justice Curtis’s arguments or those of Dean Dwight. But I am arguing that you should give them serious consideration...
Click to expand...

So what is he saying? He's saying that the Constitution should require a crime, not that it does. So he spent all this time just giving us his desires, not what the Constitution requires.

Dersh, take some time off, write a Constitutional Amendment, get it passed and ratified, then talk to us because then you'll be relevant. You aren't now.
 
humbolt said:
A friend of immediate convenience, and nothing more. When was the last time you were interested in or respected anything Bolton had to say? Never.
Click to expand...

Since he was in the room and made a claim about what Trump said. So let’s call his bluff.
 
jnug said:
The House only has the power to Impeach. The Senate has the power to hold the Trial and everybody knows you have no trial without witnesses and documents. In fact, this would be the first Impeachment of any kind, Judges whatever that did not have witnesses and documents. So you can make believe this is going to fly all you want. It won't. But I am absolutely convinced what is left of the GOP has tied their fate to the Trump boat anchor no matter what.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

Sufficient for indictment. Now let's hear the new evidence
 
Carleen said:
Since he was in the room and made a claim about what Trump said. So let’s call his bluff.
Click to expand...

I have no need to hear from Bolton. If you do, write your Senator a letter. If the GOP decides to hear additional witnesses, then we'll hear from additional witnesses. If they don't, then we won't. I'd prefer we get it over with, acquit Trump, and let you guys try again as many times as you like.
 
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...

What he is also not is a Constitutional scholar who he admits all disagree with his current views of impeachment. What happened to the real Constitutional scholar that testified for Republicans in the House inquiry?
 
Condor060 said:
:lamo This case would have been thrown out the minute the prosecution tried to bring hearsay witnesses to the stand.
Click to expand...

Is that what you learned in law school counselor?
 
vegas giants said:
Sufficient for indictment. Now let's hear the new evidence
Click to expand...

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?
 
humbolt said:
I have no need to hear from Bolton. If you do, write your Senator a letter. If the GOP decides to hear additional witnesses, then we'll hear from additional witnesses. If they don't, then we won't. I'd prefer we get it over with, acquit Trump, and let you guys try again as many times as you like.
Click to expand...

O guess you dont want to hear all the evidence
 
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...

No. They clearly had sufficient evidence for indictment.


Does that mean they should ignore any new evidence????
 
humbolt said:
Again, are you saying the House was incompetent? They conducted the investigation, after all.
Click to expand...

Yep. They got an indictment too.


Now let's hear the new evidence
 
OscarLevant said:
Trumpsters, suck on this....




DIRECT EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...

What did I miss? Where is this coveted transcript of Boltons book that the WH has to clear before it can be released to the public?

Or are we just taking the word of yet another undisclosed, anonymous, nameless, suspected reporter or individual?

Would this be the same undisclosed, anonymous, nameless, suspected reporter or individual that
had Trumps tax returns,
found evidence of Russian cosigners for Trump loans,
had video of Russian hookers peeing on Trump

You guys just never learn. :lamo
 
Condor060 said:
What did I miss? Where is this coveted transcript of Boltons book that the WH has to clear before it can be released to the public?

Or are we just taking the word of yet another undisclosed, anonymous, nameless, suspected reporter or individual?

Would this be the same undisclosed, anonymous, nameless, suspected reporter or individual that
had Trumps tax returns,
found evidence of Russian cosigners for Trump loans,
had video of Russian hookers peeing on Trump

You guys just never learn. :lamo
Click to expand...

We could just ask Bolton
 
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...

Are you saying they should have held the trial in the House?
 
humbolt said:
I have no need to hear from Bolton. If you do, write your Senator a letter. If the GOP decides to hear additional witnesses, then we'll hear from additional witnesses. If they don't, then we won't. I'd prefer we get it over with, acquit Trump, and let you guys try again as many times as you like.
Click to expand...

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.
 
vegas giants said:
Is that what you learned in law school counselor?
Click to expand...

Oh, You got this idea it takes a law degree to know the difference between a fact witness and a hearsay witness? Maybe for you but..................
 
Condor060 said:
Oh, You got this idea it takes a law degree to know the difference between a fact witness and a hearsay witness? Maybe for you but..................
Click to expand...

Thank you. Your legal opinion is dismissed
 
vegas giants said:
We could just ask Bolton
Click to expand...

Yup, You sure should have. But we were all in this dyer national emergency state. Remember? Right before that national emergency state was forgotten and they sat on the articles for 30 days.
 
Condor060 said:
Yup, You sure should have. But we were all in this dyer national emergency state. Remember? Right before that national emergency state was forgotten and they sat on the articles for 30 days.
Click to expand...

We can just do it now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom