Nadler's salient point.

[hadit]

Repubs simply did not want to hear what Bolton had to say because they did not want to take the risk his testimony would make the vote they wanted to make untenable.

Mind readers of the world, unite!

 

[berg80]

Mind readers of the world, unite!

Your denial of reality is noted.

 

[berg80]

FUCK NO!
Corrupt intent was illegally spying on the Trump campaign.
Corrupt intent was Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Corrupt intent was the "Russian Collusion Hoax" and the bullshit Mueller Investigation.
Corrupt intent was impeachment with no crime. (an actual abuse of power)

You do understand when you deflect in that way it makes it all the more obvious you can't answer my question, right?

 

[hadit]

Your denial of reality is noted.

What, you really think you can read minds? Better check the fit of your X23Z foil helmet. It's too tight.

 

[22lcidw]

Bolton's warmongering has no bearing on his credibility as a witness in the impeachment trial. I don't recall any Repub senator saying, "I refuse to call Bolton as a witness because he advocated for the invasion of Iraq."
The fact is, Bolton's observations of Trump in his book are absolutely consistent with what we know about the Divider-in-Chief. So...........your attempt to impugn Bolton as a witness is a failure in its execution and transparent in its motivation. Anything else?

The people affected by the Clinton's don't either, right? They were/are the most machivellian people in politics in American history. They got off near scot free. The bar hit the bottom with them and it really does not matter anymore, does it?

 

[berg80]

What, you really think you can read minds? Better check the fit of your X23Z foil helmet. It's too tight.

“It’s absolutely 180 degrees the opposite of the truth,” Bolton said. When Trump was acquitted in the Senate, Trump instead learned that “he could get away with it.”

Bolton Says House Impeachment Inquiry Taught Trump ‘He Could Get Away With It’

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton told ABC News' Martha Raddatz in an interview on Sunday about his forthcoming book that Election Day is the "last guardrail"

talkingpointsmemo.com

 

[Nostra]

“It’s absolutely 180 degrees the opposite of the truth,” Bolton said. When Trump was acquitted in the Senate, Trump instead learned that “he could get away with it.”

Bolton Says House Impeachment Inquiry Taught Trump ‘He Could Get Away With It’

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton told ABC News' Martha Raddatz in an interview on Sunday about his forthcoming book that Election Day is the "last guardrail"

talkingpointsmemo.com

Bolton knows what “Trump learned”.

 

[berg80]

The people affected by the Clinton's don't either, right?

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that your unwillingness to address the subject of the thread caused you to resort to a whataboutism.

 

[hadit]

“It’s absolutely 180 degrees the opposite of the truth,” Bolton said. When Trump was acquitted in the Senate, Trump instead learned that “he could get away with it.”

Bolton Says House Impeachment Inquiry Taught Trump ‘He Could Get Away With It’

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton told ABC News' Martha Raddatz in an interview on Sunday about his forthcoming book that Election Day is the "last guardrail"

talkingpointsmemo.com

Naturally, you believe what Bolton says, here.

 

[berg80]

Naturally, you believe what Bolton says, here.

Because it is consistent with Trump's behavior and with other accounts from people inside the admin.

 

[berg80]

The larger point Nadler was making it to highlight the fact Trump knows full well he can do anything he pleases because Senate Repubs are too cowed to hold him accountable.

 

[Flash]

Any Moon Bat that thinks that shithead Nadler EVER had anything salient to say just needs to take the TDS meds and go lie down for awhile.

 

[hunarcy]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

Nadler was the one that was supposed to fully investigate and bring his case. According to you, he didn't and wants to whine that the "jury" wouldn't investigate for him.

Makes him a whiny loser.

 

[easyt65]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Nadler is an incompetent, ignorant, corrupt, partisan SOB who simply does not Understand the US Constitution / Separation of Powers / how the US government works.

The fact that the CHAIRMAN of the JUDICIAL COMMITTEE successfully led the House Democrats in Censuring the United States Attorney General for REFUSING TO BREAK THE LAW is an historic black mark not only on Nadler but on every Democrat who supported him and voted to Censure the US AG for NOT breaking the law.

Now the ignorant f* proves he still has not educated himself / learned that the United states President has the Constitutional / legal authority to fire anyone he wants while simply declaring he has 'lost confidence' in the person he fires.

The Democrats who have infected Congress the last 5 years have been some of the most partisan, most hate-driven, DUMBEST, most corrupt, most criminal in US history.

Censuring a US AG for NOT breaking the Law
The 1st partisan political Impeachment in US history - no crime, no evidence, no witnesses, and admitted partisan/political Impeachment....

They have run a continuous criminal clown circus

 

[kyzr]

You do understand when you deflect in that way it makes it all the more obvious you can't answer my question, right?

What Deflection?? I answered your question:
Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness. How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

It was the House's responsibility to present all impeachment evidence. The senate is the Jury. Its not the jury's job to hunt for evidence, period.
I gave you examples (below) of real "corrupt intent". That is NOT a deflection. Your question was answered, with examples.
Corrupt intent was illegally spying on the Trump campaign.
Corrupt intent was Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Corrupt intent was the "Russian Collusion Hoax" and the bullshit Mueller Investigation.
Corrupt intent was impeachment with no crime. (an actual abuse of power)

 

[bripat9643]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

 

[hadit]

Because it is consistent with Trump's behavior and with other accounts from people inside the admin.

So it confirms your bias.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

There is nothing Bolton could add to the case as called out by the two retarded articles of impeachment.

If he could have, he would have.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Repubs simply did not want to hear what Bolton had to say because they did not want to take the risk his testimony would make the vote they wanted to make untenable.

Bolton's testimony would have been very limited and constricted.

What you were hoping for didn't materialize.

And we have to again ask why the House didn't call him as a witness.

You still pleading the senate needed to do their (the house's) job.

Fuck Nadler and fuck you too.

 

[OKTexas]

Would you mind answering the question? How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

It's never been the obligation of the court or the jury to make the prosecutors case, it's on the prosecution, and they failed miserably. That tends to happen when the prosecution is on a clock, instead of taking their time and performing their due diligence. That's what you get when you elect ideologues instead of competent people. But in the end it would have turned out the same, there was never a case that would warrant conviction and removal.

.