You want evidence? Bolton book outlines Trump is guilty

[cabse5]

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

Rather, those guys always try the same underhanded BS.

 

[humbolt]

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?

I don't believe the GOP is afraid of witnesses, or "new" evidence anymore than than the democrats are. Acquittal is a foregone conclusion. 67 votes is a bar the left can't reach. The goal here is to limit the democrats penchant to filibuster indefinitely. Who doubts that if Schiff and Nadler had been given 5 days, they'd drone on for every second of it? They'd blab on pointlessly until next November on the floor of the Senate in an effort to suck all the air out of the election if they could. They no doubt will anyway, but not on the floor of the Senate. You guys will have to find another stage.

 

[humbolt]

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.

The democrats certainly want to talk about this crap all the way up to the election, and they will. The public will tire of it, if they haven't already. That's enough reason for the GOP to limit the democrat's time on the Senate stage by itself. If the articles forwarded to the Senate had any merit or any chance of success in removing Trump, that would be another story entirely, but they clearly don't.

 

[veritas1]

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.


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.

No, he was clearly arguing that the historical interpretation was, and is, that the Constitution requires a crime; bribery. high crimes or misdemeanors, which are also crimes. There is not a single crime which can be attached to Trump and that is why the nebulous articles name none.

 

[veritas1]

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?

Jonathan Turley. What about him? He made the same points Dershowitz has made. He's also another Democrat.

 

[veritas1]

You mean like the Whistle blower?

Yes, exactly. The WB has no firsthand information and no case would proceed based on anything he has to say.

 

[veritas1]

Yep. They got an indictment too.


Now let's hear the new evidence

indictment? They passed some vague nonsense with no standing in law. It's a complete embarassment and should be dismissed forthwith.

 

[veritas1]

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.

The time for this was when it resided in the House. Blame Nancy and Schifty for screwing it all up. Now, there are probably enough weak kneed Republicans that the vote for witnesses will prevail but it will not change the outcome whatever. Nothing Bolton or Mulvaney can say will change anything nor will anything they say qualify as impeachable crimes. Bolton, in particular, has a huge axe to grind and his sudden book appearance smacks of revenge against Trump for not letting him drag us into yet another war and then dismissing him.

 

[veritas1]

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."

Who the hell is Josh Marshall? Let's see this windbag debate Dershowitz. That ought to be some real comedy.

 

[jpn]

No, he was clearly arguing that the historical interpretation was, and is, that the Constitution requires a crime; bribery. high crimes or misdemeanors, which are also crimes. There is not a single crime which can be attached to Trump and that is why the nebulous articles name none.

Odd, how almost no legal constitutional scholars agree. I wonder if you deny global warming, too. Evolution?

 

[jpn]

Who the hell is Josh Marshall? Let's see this windbag debate Dershowitz. That ought to be some real comedy.

Josh Marshall is a guy who runs a website that contains arguments that make conservatives cry. Like this:

A consultation of James Madison’s notes from July 20, 1787, when impeachment was discussed, shows that there were three fundamental concerns: one, that a president would use his power to corrupt electors and/or elections; two, that a president would use money in his hands as commander-in-chief for corrupt purposes; and three that a president would become entangled in foreign intrigues for his personal benefit. Abuse of power to corrupt an election was high on the list of impeachable conduct, with concern about foreign powers intermeddling in America’s politics being a close second.

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, exactly. The WB has no firsthand information and no case would proceed based on anything he has to say.

Then why were Republicans asking for him to testify?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Trumpsters, suck on this....




DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Sonsidering nobody except the NSA has seem the book, nobody knows what the book says. It's just more democrat claims to "facts" they do not have, could not have. Fishing again in hopes of a Bombshell coming out of the book. It's not in evidence and at this point bringing it in is not founded in any truthful reasoning.

 

[iguanaman]

Jonathan Turley. What about him? He made the same points Dershowitz has made. He's also another Democrat.

He did not say abuse of power was not grounds for impeachment and that is why he did not testify in the Senate. Trump is asking to be crowned King.

 

[OscarLevant]

Sonsidering nobody except the NSA has seem the book, nobody knows what the book says. It's just more democrat claims to "facts" they do not have, could not have. Fishing again in hopes of a Bombshell coming out of the book. It's not in evidence and at this point bringing it in is not founded in any truthful reasoning.

So? As National Security advisor his testimony will be relevant. So let's see what he has to say.

 

[Threegoofs]

Josh Marshall is a guy who runs a website that contains arguments that make conservatives cry. Like this:

Wow!

This one looks like a hat trick!

 

[code1211]

New evidence is available. Bolton wants to testify now.



What are you afraid he will say?

What makes you think fear is involved in my view of this?

 

[code1211]

because these sycophants will latch onto anything like leeches to feed their TDS.
there is no stopping them at all they have lost all ability to use any kind of logical or critical thinking skills.

There is nothing in this that departs from the playbook used by the Democrat-Socialists against Kavanaugh.

There is no depth of slime in which these lying butt holes will not find the bottom. They are ALWAYS successful in somehow going lower than anyone could possibly predict.

Being a Democrat-Socialist requires hating America, lying perpetually and disregarding legislated law.

Trump has engineered the conditions in which ALL AMERICANS have the chance for better jobs paying higher wages, greater freedom, lower taxes and more wealth.

Democrat-Socialists shriek, "He must be stopped!" This alone shows how deranged they are. Who are the unthinking dupes who support the AOC/Bernie/Liz/Nancy/Chuck Democrat-Socialist political suicide pact?

 

[code1211]

Because they are consistent with earlier testimony.

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

Just to help you to constrain your runaway passions on this:

The manuscript is not released. The unreleased manuscript was not read by the publishers of the leaks. The source of the leaks, as always, is attributed to an "Anonymous Source".

It seems more likely than not that, once again, anonymous is just French for non-existent.

Like their sources, the reliability of journalists in our world has fallen to a level just south of non-existent.

 

[code1211]

Either Bolton is lying or he is not. If he is lying, the only way to prove it would be to call Mulvaney and Pompeo to testify, but then how would Trump allow that to happen given executive privilege he is claiming for them? Wow, if Bolton testifies, Trump cannot win anything because if he gives up executive privilege he proves his words mean nothing and if he doesn't, then Bolton needs to be believed.

Either way, this is a loss for the Don.

With respect, we don't kn ow a thing about anything that Bolton wrote in the unreleased manuscript.

We only know what the leak published by the NYT, a lying propaganda organ of the DNC, wants us to believe Bolton said.

This is the same lying propaganda organ that has lied about so many things hurtful to Trump. During the Kavanaugh hearings, the NYT among others published numerous lies attributed to , wait for it, "Anonymous Sources"

How many times must an entity lie to you before you start to question why they are lying about whatever they are lying about this time?

If you don't question any story attributed to "Anonymous Sources" by now, it's beyond me.

Russian Collusion: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Mueller: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Kavanaugh: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Ukraine: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

2020 Election Interference: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Impeachment: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Same is true about the entire rogues gallery of misinformation published and broadcast.

How many lies must be proven false before you start to question the motivation of the inveterate liars?

Only one thing is certain: Journalism stopped being important to these hacks long ago.

 

[code1211]

Nothing is Stopping Barr from starting a separate investigation on Biden but Biden's testimony has nothing to do with this impeachment trial

Don't be ridiculous. If Biden is not involved and, by proxy, Obama, there is no need on the part oof the Democrat-Socialists for impeachment.

The Obama administration is most corrupt gang of crooks ever to soil our Republic.

This entire impeachment sham is to disguise that in a grand cover up of the conspiracy between the DNC, the Hillary campaign and the spy agencies of the US, Britain and Australia.

It's a shame that the journalists of our world are all complicit dupes sucking up to the Democrat-Socialists.

This is a fantastic story that would make the writer either famous or dead after committing suicide in his cell. It's not nice to mess with the Democrat-Socialist elites.

 

[code1211]

Which of the articles of impeahment are accusing a Democrat socialist?

Accusing? None. Indicted by? All of them.

 

[code1211]

Executive privilege cannot be used to hide misconduct nor can it be used on information in a book that the NSC has granted clearence to publish

No such clearance has been provided.

 

[Luckyone]

With respect, we don't kn ow a thing about anything that Bolton wrote in the unreleased manuscript.

We only know what the leak published by the NYT, a lying propaganda organ of the DNC, wants us to believe Bolton said.

This is the same lying propaganda organ that has lied about so many things hurtful to Trump. During the Kavanaugh hearings, the NYT among others published numerous lies attributed to , wait for it, "Anonymous Sources"

How many times must an entity lie to you before you start to question why they are lying about whatever they are lying about this time?

If you don't question any story attributed to "Anonymous Sources" by now, it's beyond me.

Russian Collusion: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Mueller: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Kavanaugh: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Ukraine: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

2020 Election Interference: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Impeachment: A swing and a miss. NYT on board throughout ready to condemn Trump.

Same is true about the entire rogues gallery of misinformation published and broadcast.

How many lies must be proven false before you start to question the motivation of the inveterate liars?

Only one thing is certain: Journalism stopped being important to these hacks long ago.

Simple solution to all your questions or points.

Bring Bolton to testify.

You should be all for it, given that Bolton is a Republican, was chosen by Trump, was in his inner circle and represents everything that Republicans want.

You should be asking, requesting, and even demanding he testify, that is of course if you are interested in the truth and not just in perpetrating your personal goals no matter how unlawful or damaging they may be to our nation.

 

[code1211]

Specious argument. Disagreeing with political philosophy has no bearing on whether or not one can tell the truth regarding knowledge of historical events.


There is no evidence a neo-con, Bolton in this case, can't tell the truth under oath regarding knowledge of historical events to which that neocon witnessed.


Neither Schiff, Pelosi, or Nadler are socialists.


The stakes are astronomical, there is no way Bolton is going to lie under oath, the spotlight of history will be upon him. Democrats are not asking him to espouse his views on foreign policy, we are asking for his testimony given he is a direct witnesses to the matters before the Senate trial

Please recall that upiu are getting excited about the report of a known reporter of bad information, the New York Times.

They have reported that "an anonymous source" has interpreted something that "the anonymous source" claims to have knowledge of.

The same outlets dropped "bombshells" regarding:

Trump Russian Collusion
Mueller about to spring the trap
Caged Children
Kavanaugh misdeeds
Ukraine Bribery/quid pro quo/pressuring/ withholding aid
Impeachment

All of this with the same source: Anonymous.

This clown show used to be a newspaper with journalists. Now it's the National Enquirer without the space aliens.

Have you noted that ANYONE who may damage Trump is ALWAYS elevated to the level of absolute integrity? Within days, they are usually revealed to be partisan swindlers.

When Bolton was seen as a supporter of Trump, he was dog poop. Now he might be against Trump and he's the enlightened one.

This is just like all the rest from Julie Swednick to Avanatti to anyone else produced by the Democrat-Socialists. They all turn out to be the dregs of society lying for profit.

Do you really not see this?

Bernie, Liz, the Squad and AOC are Socialists and so, apparently, is about 40% of the Democrat-Socialist Party according to the Presidential preferences polled.