You're making the defense's point as it relates specifically to impeachment proceeding/requirments. The house at the time of those subpoenas had not approved anything related to impeachment. NOTHING. There had been no legal authorization given to schitt's committee to have impeachment related subpoenas issued or investigated. Trump was not legally obligated to answer impeachment subpoenas when impeachment had not been approved by the house.
John Bolton: Trump Tied Aid To Biden Investigation
- Thread starter Chevy1
- Start date
You're making the defense's point as it relates specifically to impeachment proceeding/requirments. The house at the time of those subpoenas had not approved anything related to impeachment. NOTHING. There had been no legal authorization given to schitt's committee to have impeachment related subpoenas issued or investigated. Trump was not legally obligated to answer impeachment subpoenas when impeachment had not been approved by the house.
The committee has the inherent authority to issue subpoenas. It has been granted them by the House. This is a fact regardless of how many times you repeat yourself.
That's obvious. I've never suggested you were factual (about anything).
However, your ilk already seems to claim this Bolton story is factual.
Maybe that's why you used "if". Even you know this has a probability of being another nothing burger.
And the WH has the legal right to decline them.
In the case of impeachment, the house had granted NOTHING. Regardless of you demonstrating you don't understand that.
You guys do the same thing. If those on the right hear something from rifle or greed backed by a believed to be true article the right says it's hearsay or not true. If rifle and greed are confronted with evidence thought to be true evidence they simply say the exact same then like a broken record call whoever a liar and a idiot. Rifle is like grasshopper to EG. EG has passed along the same offensive words. Extra has been following the government 30 35 yrs longer than rifle. He should know far more.Good thing is a new Yorker and a Wayne countian seeing things the same. Not much difference is why they are pals.
If I were a Republican...and I have been registered a Republican since 1976...I’d very much want Bolton to testify in order to clear up all of those false allegations and slander hitting the news. I mean...why would I not want to prove the “legitimacy of the allegations” and dispel the “reportedly wrote” stuff said by the “unnamed” sources. Why should we keep listening to this, “If this is confirmed as accurate,” stuff. Everyone knows that this is just another attempt that has “No facts, no truth, just made up lies and rumors.”
So I fully expect the Republican Senate to lead the march today to call for witnesses so we can get Bolton, Mulvaney, and anyone else with first hand knowledge on the stand. Witnesses are the perfect scenario from my view. It forces Bolton to tell the truth or perjure himself in front of the Senate and country. I, for one, want the truth just like all of you conservatives. We want witnesses.
So I fully expect the Republican Senate to lead the march today to call for witnesses so we can get Bolton, Mulvaney, and anyone else with first hand knowledge on the stand. Witnesses are the perfect scenario from my view. It forces Bolton to tell the truth or perjure himself in front of the Senate and country. I, for one, want the truth just like all of you conservatives. We want witnesses.
you mean just like before when we found out “mueller(didn’t) know?” “The Ukraine phone transcript was (not)doctored?” “The whistleblower actually coordinated with Schiff.” “The fisa warrants were (not) legal.” Or “quid pro quo”...no wait...”treason”...no wait....”bribery”....no wait... “slam dunk obstruction case”....uhhhh ooops “the witnesses we had didn’t prove that... we need more witnesses.”
yeah. It would be interesting to see what excuses you guys would come up with next to keep the thing going into the election.
So you're with me? Another chance to prove us guys wrong again? Right? Join me in calling our senator and demanding witnesses.
you sure have a strange affection for faux news, tucker carlson, and sheep as of late.
I already called our congressman's office and demanded the judicial committee be the committee in charge of investigating and conduct open non secretive hearings that Repubs could participate in fully. They weren't interested.
Nope. This has a probability of being a game changer. National Security Advisor and eye witness, the very thing you and the liar in chief can't afford to testify.
how many "game changers" are you going to blindly follow before realizing the left is duping you over and over . . . and over and over . . . ? damn, and rifle call's us 'sheep' . . .
Cool.. another "game changer" moment. Brought to us by the Dems (who haven't gotten anything right yet)
although i've never hidden, i have watched the dems repeated failures for over three years . . . it's been glorious.
Bolton would just claim Executive Priviledge and most of the info would be deemed classified or in the best interest on national security and would never be given to the Senate or would be perhaps behind closed doors.
He would hever really testify and by the way, they can't make him. He would likely just claim Executive Priviledge and they would get nothing more that some outlying info and turn it into a circus(again).
He would hever really testify and by the way, they can't make him. He would likely just claim Executive Priviledge and they would get nothing more that some outlying info and turn it into a circus(again).
No. Not exactly. This vote still had nothing to do specifically with "Impeachment" process. Hell on June 11th the Dems in the HOR (AOC specifically) were still fighting with Pelosi to vote for starting the impeachment process. You still don't get it, do you?
No, you don't get it. The reform in June granted all committees and subcommittees subpoena power.
Isn’t it funny how the liberal left always comes up with another bombshell at the 11th hour.
What's really funny is watching you cons claim the liar in chief is innocent while not wanting evidence released.
And I'd bet at least a couple of posters here would suck a dick if it mean they kept getting their paycheck.
From the Fox news article:
"that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."
Here's my question - most of the headlines make it seem as though he was withholding the aid until Ukraine announced (as in public Ally) an investigation into the Bidens - was the aid conditionally tied to investigating the Bidens specifically and announcing it, or in Ukraine agreeing to investigate corruption tied to the 2016 election and/or in general. If it's the first, that's a problem. If it's the latter, then he did nothing wrong. Even though the headlines spin what is in the book, without knowing for certain which one Bolton is saying occurred it's impossible to give this any weight one way or the other.
"that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."
Here's my question - most of the headlines make it seem as though he was withholding the aid until Ukraine announced (as in public Ally) an investigation into the Bidens - was the aid conditionally tied to investigating the Bidens specifically and announcing it, or in Ukraine agreeing to investigate corruption tied to the 2016 election and/or in general. If it's the first, that's a problem. If it's the latter, then he did nothing wrong. Even though the headlines spin what is in the book, without knowing for certain which one Bolton is saying occurred it's impossible to give this any weight one way or the other.
The reporting says it was, "the Bidens". Also, that was a point Schiff and team drive home last week....the record pretty much always show his communications stated the "2016 election" and "the Bidens". BTW, he said those exact words on the White House lawn.
Last edited:
That's your opinion, and neither side really wants that question answered.
Considering Trump mentions the Bidens in that "transcript", you might want to get your head out of your ass.
Look, no question the Bidens were part of Trump's concerns, but that's because they were involved in some skeezy shit on it's face (at the very least there was an appearance of impropriety, which government officials sign conflict checks and are required to avoid).
That's just it - "the reporting" - which has consistently proven to be less than reliable in all things Trump. Now, if Bolden himself directly says Trump withheld aid for the specific purpose of getting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, not because of perceived past corruption, but for the specific to help help him in the upcoming election, them you're getting somewhere. Absent that, the reports as they currently stand, are just more of the same bullshit.
Trump mentioned two things in his "perfect" call.
The first was an actual conspiracy theory. Alex Jones level bullshit.
The second was Hunter Biden was sketchy (who knows, he is a coke-head) and Joe Biden did something dirty with that prosecutor thing (which has been proven to be bullshit, all of Europe and the IMF wanted that mob-tied prosecutor out.)
The fact is, it is perfectly legal for the child of a high government official to get a job that looks skeezy....but it can't actually be skeezy on its face because it is perfectly legal. Short of telling their children they are not allowed to work, I have no idea how to fix it. And after all, is there any family doing more skeezy looking shit than the Trumps? Jesus Christ, these kids are doing deals with dozens of governments. They are the Royal Family of Skeezy.
Last edited:
It's my guess Bolton knows, if this info comes out right before his book goes on sale, his profits go up.
At the same time, it's important to point out Bolton's manuscript (as reported) supports the testimony of his aids, Dr. Hill and Colonel Vindman.
If your case is so conclusive, then why didn’t all the Democrats in the congressional house vote for it?And why didn’t any Republicans vote for it?
Amen brother
It’s not legal to get that job if the other party was pressured by the vice president to give him that job. .
How many companies have Trump's kids dealt with that were (1) under criminal investigation, and (2) Trump had the investigator fired? I'll wait while you look that up.
