The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[colfax_m]

It's about more than just that one phone call. It was a course of conduct for which he was impeached. I highly recommend you actually read the articles of impeachment or have them explained to you if you're that incapable of understanding them.

The articles don't list a crime or impeachable wrongdoing.

Just 2 vague whines.

Dumbfuck, abuse of power is an impeachable offense. The House drafted an article of impeachment on abuse of power against Nixon and Clinton as well.

Where does one find the definition of abuse of power? Your imagination and those of the libtards does not count.

It's whatever the House says it is. In this case, they say it was using the power of his office for personal gain.

What personal gain would that be? You don't have an answer so don't try that "dirt on a political opponent" bullshit! It doesn't fly with anyone above a room temp IQ.

Rudy Giuliani said that it would be personally beneficial to Trump. Is his IQ room temperature?

 

[Paulie]

Apparently this information was provided to both The Washington Post and The New York Times.

They're deep state same as Bolton.
God you're clueless.

Bolton was deep state but he flipped. This whole Bolton thing is going to blow up in their faces. You heard it here first.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What? WTF?

I mean, if Bolton testifies that Trump connected aid and investigations, then Trump would need to respond. If the response is just “he’s lying” then that’s a very weak response.

Bolton would need something on hard-copy to prove he just wasn't saying that Trump knew, and then, what if all this is true? It still means nothing!

Goalposts are moving. First you wanted firsthand witnesses. Now you’re demanding documentary evidence. Nothing will ever satisfy the true Trump believers.

If it’s all true, then it contradicts something that the Trump defense has been working very hard to convince us of. Wouldn’t you wonder why Trump was trying to sell you on a lie that didn’t even matter?

Bolton is not a firsthand witness either as he was FIRED by Trump. If Trump actually did anything that Bolton didn't like, why didn't Bolton appear before the House impeachment inquiry?

There’s a discrepancy as to whether he was fired or resigned. But let’s say he was fired. How does that mean he wasn’t a firsthand witness?

His testimony is tainted because he is a disgruntled former employee. DUH!

 

[Faun]

WTF?? Who says hearsay doesn't count? You??

And there was actual evidence. From Impeached Trump himself...

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it..."​

What is your source for that comment? Is that Schiff's fantasy conversation?

I just said where it came from. Are you hard of learning??

Are you terminally stupid? I guess you are!

You cited no reference. You just claimed Trump said it. When? Where? How? Why?

Either shut your cock holster or answer the question, you miserable piece of shit!

LOLOL

Yes, I did, ya flaming gay moron.

"From Impeached Trump himself..." ~ Faun​

Listen here semen breath, I can say that Trump said the moon is made of clitty litter from your Momma's underwear, but that doesn't make it true. Now, pony up the citation or go play with yourself. If you do that long enough, you might get a surprise!

I already told you the source. Impeached Trump. He himself had the memorandum of his phone call released to the public.

You're truly fucking brain-dead to not know that after 4 months of discussion on the matter.

 

[colfax_m]

I mean, if Bolton testifies that Trump connected aid and investigations, then Trump would need to respond. If the response is just “he’s lying” then that’s a very weak response.

Bolton would need something on hard-copy to prove he just wasn't saying that Trump knew, and then, what if all this is true? It still means nothing!

Goalposts are moving. First you wanted firsthand witnesses. Now you’re demanding documentary evidence. Nothing will ever satisfy the true Trump believers.

If it’s all true, then it contradicts something that the Trump defense has been working very hard to convince us of. Wouldn’t you wonder why Trump was trying to sell you on a lie that didn’t even matter?

Bolton is not a firsthand witness either as he was FIRED by Trump. If Trump actually did anything that Bolton didn't like, why didn't Bolton appear before the House impeachment inquiry?

There’s a discrepancy as to whether he was fired or resigned. But let’s say he was fired. How does that mean he wasn’t a firsthand witness?

His testimony is tainted because he is a disgruntled former employee. DUH!

If that’s the best you can do, so be it. It’s incredibly weak. If he’s disgruntled, it’s because Trump isn’t fit for office.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Apparently this information was provided to both The Washington Post and The New York Times.

They're deep state same as Bolton.
God you're clueless.

It's not like he would be promoting his book....would it?????

The man is a nut who uses a bomb as his first solution to anything

Amazing how the libs keep hoisting a Hail Mary, only for it to become incomplete

Meet John Bolton

 

[Faun]

I mean, if Bolton testifies that Trump connected aid and investigations, then Trump would need to respond. If the response is just “he’s lying” then that’s a very weak response.

Bolton would need something on hard-copy to prove he just wasn't saying that Trump knew, and then, what if all this is true? It still means nothing!

Goalposts are moving. First you wanted firsthand witnesses. Now you’re demanding documentary evidence. Nothing will ever satisfy the true Trump believers.

If it’s all true, then it contradicts something that the Trump defense has been working very hard to convince us of. Wouldn’t you wonder why Trump was trying to sell you on a lie that didn’t even matter?

Bolton is not a firsthand witness either as he was FIRED by Trump. If Trump actually did anything that Bolton didn't like, why didn't Bolton appear before the House impeachment inquiry?

There’s a discrepancy as to whether he was fired or resigned. But let’s say he was fired. How does that mean he wasn’t a firsthand witness?

His testimony is tainted because he is a disgruntled former employee. DUH!

That doesn't mean he's not a first hand witness. You're truly fucking brain-dead.

 

[wamose]

It's about more than just that one phone call. It was a course of conduct for which he was impeached. I highly recommend you actually read the articles of impeachment or have them explained to you if you're that incapable of understanding them.

The articles don't list a crime or impeachable wrongdoing.

Just 2 vague whines.

Dumbfuck, abuse of power is an impeachable offense. The House drafted an article of impeachment on abuse of power against Nixon and Clinton as well.

Where does one find the definition of abuse of power? Your imagination and those of the libtards does not count.

It's whatever the House says it is. In this case, they say it was using the power of his office for personal gain.

Doing an excellent job usually results in a personal gain. When Trump makes the US look good, it is a personal gain to all of us. So what's your point? Do you think Trump should try to fail (like your party) just to be able to claim his actions didn't benefit him personally? That's some far fetched shit even from a Democrat.

 

[MAGAman]

It's whatever the House says it is. In this case, they say it was using the power of his office for personal gain.

But that's a lie.

Just ask the Ukrainian President.

The House has the authority to impeach based on a lie. That point of yours is correct

 

[Faun]

It's about more than just that one phone call. It was a course of conduct for which he was impeached. I highly recommend you actually read the articles of impeachment or have them explained to you if you're that incapable of understanding them.

The articles don't list a crime or impeachable wrongdoing.

Just 2 vague whines.

Dumbfuck, abuse of power is an impeachable offense. The House drafted an article of impeachment on abuse of power against Nixon and Clinton as well.

Where does one find the definition of abuse of power? Your imagination and those of the libtards does not count.

It's whatever the House says it is. In this case, they say it was using the power of his office for personal gain.

Doing an excellent job usually results in a personal gain. When Trump makes the US look good, it is a personal gain to all of us. So what's your point? Do you think Trump should try to fail (like your party) just to be able to claim his actions didn't benefit him personally? That's some far fetched shit even from a Democrat.

That you excuse soliciting campaign help from a foreign national because it benefits Impeached Trump speaks for you.

 

[MAGAman]

That doesn't mean he's not a first hand witness. You're truly fucking brain-dead.

And yet Democrats refused to subpoena him.

Gee.. Wonder why...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Bolton would need something on hard-copy to prove he just wasn't saying that Trump knew, and then, what if all this is true? It still means nothing!

Goalposts are moving. First you wanted firsthand witnesses. Now you’re demanding documentary evidence. Nothing will ever satisfy the true Trump believers.

If it’s all true, then it contradicts something that the Trump defense has been working very hard to convince us of. Wouldn’t you wonder why Trump was trying to sell you on a lie that didn’t even matter?

Bolton is not a firsthand witness either as he was FIRED by Trump. If Trump actually did anything that Bolton didn't like, why didn't Bolton appear before the House impeachment inquiry?

There’s a discrepancy as to whether he was fired or resigned. But let’s say he was fired. How does that mean he wasn’t a firsthand witness?

His testimony is tainted because he is a disgruntled former employee. DUH!

If that’s the best you can do, so be it. It’s incredibly weak. If he’s disgruntled, it’s because Trump isn’t fit for office.

That's your opinion and just like your asshole, it stinks!

 

[colfax_m]

That doesn't mean he's not a first hand witness. You're truly fucking brain-dead.

And yet Democrats refused to subpoena him.

Gee.. Wonder why...

Because he threatened to engage in a lengthy court battle which might preclude his testimony at trial. It’s. It a mystery.

 

[MAGAman]

That you excuse soliciting campaign help from a foreign national because it benefits Impeached Trump speaks for you.

It never happened.

That's why you have no evidence that it did.

 

[colfax_m]

Goalposts are moving. First you wanted firsthand witnesses. Now you’re demanding documentary evidence. Nothing will ever satisfy the true Trump believers.

If it’s all true, then it contradicts something that the Trump defense has been working very hard to convince us of. Wouldn’t you wonder why Trump was trying to sell you on a lie that didn’t even matter?

Bolton is not a firsthand witness either as he was FIRED by Trump. If Trump actually did anything that Bolton didn't like, why didn't Bolton appear before the House impeachment inquiry?

There’s a discrepancy as to whether he was fired or resigned. But let’s say he was fired. How does that mean he wasn’t a firsthand witness?

His testimony is tainted because he is a disgruntled former employee. DUH!

If that’s the best you can do, so be it. It’s incredibly weak. If he’s disgruntled, it’s because Trump isn’t fit for office.

That's your opinion and just like your asshole, it stinks!

That stink is your own desperation. It’s getting harder and harder to ignore Trump’s corruption.

 

[Faun]

It's whatever the House says it is. In this case, they say it was using the power of his office for personal gain.

But that's a lie.

Just ask the Ukrainian President.

The House has the authority to impeach based on a lie. That point of yours is correct

It's not a lie, Impeached Trump admitted he asked a foreign national to investigate a political rival...

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... "​

 

[colfax_m]

That you excuse soliciting campaign help from a foreign national because it benefits Impeached Trump speaks for you.

It never happened.

That's why you have no evidence that it did.

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden. It’s on the call transcript he released.

 

[wamose]

The articles don't list a crime or impeachable wrongdoing.

Just 2 vague whines.

Dumbfuck, abuse of power is an impeachable offense. The House drafted an article of impeachment on abuse of power against Nixon and Clinton as well.

Where does one find the definition of abuse of power? Your imagination and those of the libtards does not count.

It's whatever the House says it is. In this case, they say it was using the power of his office for personal gain.

Doing an excellent job usually results in a personal gain. When Trump makes the US look good, it is a personal gain to all of us. So what's your point? Do you think Trump should try to fail (like your party) just to be able to claim his actions didn't benefit him personally? That's some far fetched shit even from a Democrat.

That you excuse soliciting campaign help from a foreign national because it benefits Impeached Trump speaks for you.

Great sentence. What did it mean?

 

[Faun]

That doesn't mean he's not a first hand witness. You're truly fucking brain-dead.

And yet Democrats refused to subpoena him.

Gee.. Wonder why...

Again, they may still. It's an option on the table.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The articles don't list a crime or impeachable wrongdoing.

Just 2 vague whines.

Dumbfuck, abuse of power is an impeachable offense. The House drafted an article of impeachment on abuse of power against Nixon and Clinton as well.

Where does one find the definition of abuse of power? Your imagination and those of the libtards does not count.

It's whatever the House says it is. In this case, they say it was using the power of his office for personal gain.

Doing an excellent job usually results in a personal gain. When Trump makes the US look good, it is a personal gain to all of us. So what's your point? Do you think Trump should try to fail (like your party) just to be able to claim his actions didn't benefit him personally? That's some far fetched shit even from a Democrat.

That you excuse soliciting campaign help from a foreign national because it benefits Impeached Trump speaks for you.

Who was soliciting campaign help? That is the lie that the entire impeachment was based upon.