The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[colfax_m]

Biden has constitutional protections against meritless investigations. Those protections are being ignored.

Whaaat? I think this takes the "Stupid Post Of The Day Award" Thanks for the humor

So can the president decide to investigate anyone for anything?

Obviously not.

Ha ha ha,

you are flailing all over the place....

You are ignoring my post that destroys the absurd Bolton narrative desperate Schiff is trying to float.

Post 1020 you have ignored from the previous page of this thread.

You are an embarrassment to the human race with your galaxy level severe stupidity and ignorance.

You’re afraid. I get it. Don’t want Bolton to testify because it might upset the little fantasy you’ve created.

Do you understand even if Bolton says everything your looking for it’s still not against the law? You are wasting time

Why is Trump going to such lengths to convince us that he didn’t link aid and an investigation?

 

[sealybobo]

So the whistleblower and all the people from them down to Bolton are lying to sell books?

see what’s wrong with republican thinking? The scientists are lying not the oil companies and everyone trump hired is lying not trump.

how many trump supporters have you thrown under the bus? Bolton is no liberal. If he’s warning you about hitler don’t call him a liberal

gibberish ,, did you just say the whistle blower? Like he’s legit lol that’s funny.

But think about all the people who you refuse to believe. Like there is a vast RIGHT wing conspiracy from the deep state RINO's to take Trump down. So you blow off anyone who comes forward. The whistleblower, sondlund, that woman, and everyone else who testified that what Trump did was wrong and made them very uncomfortable.

If you won't listen to these people that Trump is corrupt, you won't listen to anyone.

WASHINGTON ― The bombshell revelation that former national security adviser John Bolton has written a book essentially confirming the Democrats’ case against President Donald Trump went curiously unaddressed by the president’s lawyers on Monday in the Senate impeachment trial.

Bolton’s book alleges that Trump tied the release of congressionally approved Ukraine aid to the Ukrainians’ announcing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Trump Lawyers Ignore John Bolton Bombshell In Senate Trial | HuffPost

This is the shit we couldn't prove in the Mueller report. Now we have proof he is a criminal and Republicans are defending him? I hope they pay this November for their loyalty.

Did you read what Bolton wrote? And we all been saying even if trump did what democrats are accusing ITS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Lol biden is clearly corrupt and if he’s nots asking wtf was his son doing is absolutely ok. Your just deranged.. trump has powers

What was his son doing? You mean his daddy got him a good paying job? Happens all the time. Look at every Republican Senator's son's. Look at GW Bush. You think he purchased the Texas Rangers baseball team with his own money that he earned? How about Trump? Without Trump's daddy Don is just a real estate guy in lower manhattan.

Yes, what Trump did was against the law. Please tell me you don't think it's ok for the president to strongarm another country into making up fake news against his opponent. Funny how much you guys bashed Bill for lying about one BJ because he was under oath but you embrace a pathalogical liar.

Can you cite in US Code what law was broken?
Or will you continue to lie, and spout off propaganda and falsehoods?
When you face your Creator, will you be able to tell Him that you are a man of truth?
Or will you hang your head in shame as a condemned and unrepentant man?

Trump called the new president of Ukraine on July 25. Someone within the intelligence community (we’re calling this person the ‘whistleblower’) heard the call and was concerned enough to report it to his boss, who agreed that things said in the call were problematic, and kicked it up the chain to the director of national intelligence.

In the call Trump appears to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate the family of a political rival, former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden. The president even stalled funds apportioned by Congress to support Ukraine’s military to increase that pressure.

That is why Trump is now facing impeachment.

The Constitution allows three reasons for Congress to impeach the president: treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Most impeachment cases fall into the third group, and so does this one. It’s the one bucket that doesn’t necessarily require an offense that is against the law.

The impeachment process is independent from criminal law. Most scholars agree that to be impeachable, an offense does not need to break the law.

And if doing what Trump did isn't against the law, it should be. And besides, this does break campaign finance laws. And he has broken them before. Republicans continue to allow him to break the law. If it was Obama they would have impeached him already.

The Ukraine call is outstanding because of the clarity of both the evidence and the offense. In short, the Ukraine call is impeachable because House leadership believes it has enough evidence of wrongdoing to garner enough votes. If what he did wasn't illegal, it was wrong. Abuse of power, lying, etc. He broke his oath when he was sworn in.

The alleged offense is that Trump tried to enlist the help of another country in his campaign for a second term. There is plenty of evidence for this. Investigators have records of the phone call, Trump’s own admission, and the admission of his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

You have abuse of presidential power for personal and campaign use.

Trump’s defenders don’t deny Trump’s actions. They can’t because the evidence is overwhelming. Instead, they argue that the offense is simply not that offensive, and not worthy of impeachment or removal from office.

The House only needs a simple majority on one of the articles to trigger an impeachment trial in the Senate. Once it gets to the Senate, Trump defense attorneys would make arguments on one side and members of the House on the other. Chief justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts would act as judge. In the end, Trump would be removed from office only if two-thirds of the Senate voted to convict. That’s an unlikely result because Republicans remain in control of the Senate, and ultimately impeachment proceedings are a political process rather than a criminal one.

The whole process would be a lot easier on Democrats if they didn’t have to rely on perceptions of wrongdoing but instead on the letter of the law. But did Trump break the law? That claim is more difficult for Democrats to argue because, well, there is no clear law on the matter.

Did the president break any laws?
To be impeachable, a presidential action does not need to break a law. Still, in this case, his actions might have. If the investigation found that Trump abused his position to gain competitive advantage over his adversary in the election, that would amount to soliciting a valuable contribution to his campaign from a foreign entity, which is forbidden by campaign finance laws. In order to be a criminal violation, a contribution needs to be more than $2,000. But for it to be a civil violation, any amount—monetary or otherwise—will do.


“There are specific campaign laws which prohibit any US citizen, whether it be the president or otherwise, from receiving a benefit or a value from a foreign party,” McCallion said.

So whether or not Trump broke those laws will depend on how lawmakers interpret “value.” Those who support impeachment say Trump was clearly seeking something of value from Ukraine, namely, opposition research on Biden.

That’s made worse by the fact that Trump used military aid in his negotiation, leveraging not his personal fortune, but taxpayer money as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine’s president. Since the American government had voted to give the money to Ukraine, Trump withholding it to solicit information that would benefit himself strengthens the argument of the abuse of power, adding another layer of misconduct.

So if Trump asked Ukraine for information on anyone other than a rival candidate, would it be unlawful?
It wouldn’t break campaign finance laws. But it would still be problematic because it bypasses the lawful process to deal with such situations.

“If in fact the Department of Justice had a bonafide investigation of criminal activity and reached out to a foreign government, that would be OK,” McCallion said. But it’s one thing to have an official investigation from the Justice Department, and another thing to go rogue, using private citizens.

“In this case you have the president having authorized a private individual, Rudy Giuliani, outside any government accountability, to run basically a private or personal investigation,” McCallion said, adding that this is outside any due process.

“The phone call was through these private parties to further the goals of the Trump 2020 campaign,” McCallion said.

Even if the objective wasn’t to advance his career, the president can’t just personally pursue justice through private citizens outside his administration. While maybe not as egregious an an abuse of power, such behavior is problematic and shows contempt of due process, said Martin Flaherty, a law professor at Fordham and Princeton.

“The president acted outside the internal executive guidelines.”

But is acting outside of accepted guidelines a crime? It’s not.

...the only criminal laws it might break are campaign laws.

In the end, whether or not Trump broke a law will come down to how elected lawmakers interpret campaign finance laws. If they don’t think a law was broken, Trump could still be impeached. But only if lawmakers think the offense rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In today’s political climate, however, it will likely just come down to who holds the majority, Republicans or Democrats.

The alleged offense is that Trump enlisted the help of another country in his campaign for a second term. There is plenty of evidence for this. Investigators have records of the phone call, Trump’s own admission, and the admission of his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

You have abuse of presidential power for personal and campaign use

Trump’s defenders don’t deny Trump’s actions. They can’t because the evidence is overwhelming. Instead, they argue that the offense is simply not that offensive, and not worthy of impeachment or removal from office.

To be impeachable, a presidential action does not need to break a law. Still, in this case, his actions might have. If the investigation found that Trump abused his position to gain competitive advantage over his adversary in the election, that would amount to soliciting a valuable contribution to his campaign from a foreign entity, which is forbidden by campaign finance laws. In order to be a criminal violation, a contribution needs to be more than $2,000. But for it to be a civil violation, any amount—monetary or otherwise—will do.

That’s made worse by the fact that Trump used military aid in his negotiation, leveraging not his personal fortune, but taxpayer money as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine’s president. Since the American government had voted to give the money to Ukraine, Trump withholding it to solicit information that would benefit himself strengthens the argument of the abuse of power, adding another layer of misconduct.

Hang on a minute, did Trump break the law with his Ukraine call?

 

[Care4all]

So the whistleblower and all the people from them down to Bolton are lying to sell books?

see what’s wrong with republican thinking? The scientists are lying not the oil companies and everyone trump hired is lying not trump.

how many trump supporters have you thrown under the bus? Bolton is no liberal. If he’s warning you about hitler don’t call him a liberal

gibberish ,, did you just say the whistle blower? Like he’s legit lol that’s funny.

But think about all the people who you refuse to believe. Like there is a vast RIGHT wing conspiracy from the deep state RINO's to take Trump down. So you blow off anyone who comes forward. The whistleblower, sondlund, that woman, and everyone else who testified that what Trump did was wrong and made them very uncomfortable.

If you won't listen to these people that Trump is corrupt, you won't listen to anyone.

WASHINGTON ― The bombshell revelation that former national security adviser John Bolton has written a book essentially confirming the Democrats’ case against President Donald Trump went curiously unaddressed by the president’s lawyers on Monday in the Senate impeachment trial.

Bolton’s book alleges that Trump tied the release of congressionally approved Ukraine aid to the Ukrainians’ announcing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Trump Lawyers Ignore John Bolton Bombshell In Senate Trial | HuffPost

This is the shit we couldn't prove in the Mueller report. Now we have proof he is a criminal and Republicans are defending him? I hope they pay this November for their loyalty.

Did you read what Bolton wrote? And we all been saying even if trump did what democrats are accusing ITS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Lol biden is clearly corrupt and if he’s nots asking wtf was his son doing is absolutely ok. Your just deranged.. trump has powers

What was his son doing? You mean his daddy got him a good paying job? Happens all the time. Look at every Republican Senator's son's. Look at GW Bush. You think he purchased the Texas Rangers baseball team with his own money that he earned? How about Trump? Without Trump's daddy Don is just a real estate guy in lower manhattan.

Yes, what Trump did was against the law. Please tell me you don't think it's ok for the president to strongarm another country into making up fake news against his opponent. Funny how much you guys bashed Bill for lying about one BJ because he was under oath but you embrace a pathalogical liar.

Can you cite in US Code what law was broken?
Or will you continue to lie, and spout off propaganda and falsehoods?
When you face your Creator, will you be able to tell Him that you are a man of truth?
Or will you hang your head in shame as a condemned and unrepentant man?

18 US Code 201
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;


Or

18 US CODE 872

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

[jc456]

Whaaat? I think this takes the "Stupid Post Of The Day Award" Thanks for the humor

So can the president decide to investigate anyone for anything?

Obviously not.

Ha ha ha,

you are flailing all over the place....

You are ignoring my post that destroys the absurd Bolton narrative desperate Schiff is trying to float.

Post 1020 you have ignored from the previous page of this thread.

You are an embarrassment to the human race with your galaxy level severe stupidity and ignorance.

You’re afraid. I get it. Don’t want Bolton to testify because it might upset the little fantasy you’ve created.

Do you understand even if Bolton says everything your looking for it’s still not against the law? You are wasting time

Why is Trump going to such lengths to convince us that he didn’t link aid and an investigation?

cause he's been accused? seems reasonable huh?

 

[colfax_m]

Well all the other witnesses corroborate what the whistleblower said. That's 1.
Two, Trump played the tape/transcripts and it is clear the whistleblower was not lying
Bolton is confirming what the whistleblower is saying.

You've thrown everyone who has come forward under the bus.

Fox Hosts Turn On ‘Tool For The Left’ John Bolton Like Never Before

Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Lou Dobbs and others condemned President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser ― who was a paid Fox News contributor for 11 years until he joined Trump’s White House in 2018 ― over his forthcoming book that reportedly confirms the impeachment case against the president.

So Fox News loved this guy for 11 years. Shows you they have a credibility problem.

Bolton writes in “The Room Where It Happened” that Trump tied the release of congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine to the country’s announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden.

Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs claimed Bolton “has been reduced to a tool for the radical Dims and the deep state.”


Holy shit! There is it. Anyone who speaks out against Trump is a "deep state" republican. LOL. Do you see? Your party is being run by criminals and they manipulate you with conspiracy theories, lies and fake news. God you guys are brainwashed.

Trump was asking about suspicious activity from Joe Biden .. if that’s against the law you are putting a lot of democrats in jail for doing the same investigations into trump, muller, schiff, nadler, Pelosi will all be impeached

Then why didn’t he ask the DoJ about it? He wanted to force Zelensky to announce an investigation. That’s not how our DoJ operates.

did you read the transcript? that's the evidence.

you believed schitt's fictional account. shame on you for following such a punk.

I read the transcript but not the one you’re thinking of.

then you know there was no mention of aid. you seemed confused there for a second. I'm still wondering what it is you think is wrong with discussing past communications? it's historical and has references.

when did the word Biden become a word one can't say? now it's illegal to say joe biden? really, that's what you're implying?

You need to read the transcripts of the testimony.

 

[Meister]

It seems Real Conservatives are coming to the defense of Bolton. Maybe the Faux Conservatives who are defending trump will wake up and smell the coffee, well, maybe one or two of them.

Winds of change have begun to blow, the one question will be if there are Republican Senators who took the oath seriously and will vote to convict Donald J. Trump and remove him from office.

For what? What crime wry? By the way....let Bolton be a witness, because I want to hear from Biden Jr and the whistleblower.
Bolton's book is no more than a red herring anyways.

 

[jc456]

Trump was asking about suspicious activity from Joe Biden .. if that’s against the law you are putting a lot of democrats in jail for doing the same investigations into trump, muller, schiff, nadler, Pelosi will all be impeached

Then why didn’t he ask the DoJ about it? He wanted to force Zelensky to announce an investigation. That’s not how our DoJ operates.

did you read the transcript? that's the evidence.

you believed schitt's fictional account. shame on you for following such a punk.

I read the transcript but not the one you’re thinking of.

then you know there was no mention of aid. you seemed confused there for a second. I'm still wondering what it is you think is wrong with discussing past communications? it's historical and has references.

when did the word Biden become a word one can't say? now it's illegal to say joe biden? really, that's what you're implying?

You need to read the transcripts of the testimony.

I did, nothing about aid. still wondering why you think biden's name is off limits? historical information is public knowledge. still waiting jack.

 

[jc456]

It seems Real Conservatives are coming to the defense of Bolton. Maybe the Faux Conservatives who are defending trump will wake up and smell the coffee, well, maybe one or two of them.

Winds of change have begun to blow, the one question will be if there are Republican Senators who took the oath seriously and will vote to convict Donald J. Trump and remove him from office.

For what? What crime wry? By the way....let Bolton be a witness, because I want to hear from Biden Jr and the whistleblower.
Bolton's book is no more than a red herring anyways.

there's a transcript, don't need any further witnesses to something that isn't on the record of the articles. those were voted on.

 

[Jitss617]

Whaaat? I think this takes the "Stupid Post Of The Day Award" Thanks for the humor

So can the president decide to investigate anyone for anything?

Obviously not.

Ha ha ha,

you are flailing all over the place....

You are ignoring my post that destroys the absurd Bolton narrative desperate Schiff is trying to float.

Post 1020 you have ignored from the previous page of this thread.

You are an embarrassment to the human race with your galaxy level severe stupidity and ignorance.

You’re afraid. I get it. Don’t want Bolton to testify because it might upset the little fantasy you’ve created.

Do you understand even if Bolton says everything your looking for it’s still not against the law? You are wasting time

Why is Trump going to such lengths to convince us that he didn’t link aid and an investigation?

Because no one knows what your talking about, the aid went out, the Ukraine President has no idea what your talking about

 

[Polishprince]

Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial.

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

NYT: Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Demands for Inquiries, Bolton Book Says

John Bolton Reportedly Recalls Trump Tying Ukraine Aid To Biden Investigation

How can Republicans not vote for witnesses after this? By Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt. They are two of the Times best and most credible reporters.

For many years, Bolton was attacked by libs as Literally Hitler. A few months ago, he was one of the worst people on the planet.

Yet, now, suddenly, the man has been totally rehabilitated as glorified as a Tremendous Hero.

 

[Jitss617]

gibberish ,, did you just say the whistle blower? Like he’s legit lol that’s funny.

But think about all the people who you refuse to believe. Like there is a vast RIGHT wing conspiracy from the deep state RINO's to take Trump down. So you blow off anyone who comes forward. The whistleblower, sondlund, that woman, and everyone else who testified that what Trump did was wrong and made them very uncomfortable.

If you won't listen to these people that Trump is corrupt, you won't listen to anyone.

WASHINGTON ― The bombshell revelation that former national security adviser John Bolton has written a book essentially confirming the Democrats’ case against President Donald Trump went curiously unaddressed by the president’s lawyers on Monday in the Senate impeachment trial.

Bolton’s book alleges that Trump tied the release of congressionally approved Ukraine aid to the Ukrainians’ announcing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Trump Lawyers Ignore John Bolton Bombshell In Senate Trial | HuffPost

This is the shit we couldn't prove in the Mueller report. Now we have proof he is a criminal and Republicans are defending him? I hope they pay this November for their loyalty.

Did you read what Bolton wrote? And we all been saying even if trump did what democrats are accusing ITS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Lol biden is clearly corrupt and if he’s nots asking wtf was his son doing is absolutely ok. Your just deranged.. trump has powers

What was his son doing? You mean his daddy got him a good paying job? Happens all the time. Look at every Republican Senator's son's. Look at GW Bush. You think he purchased the Texas Rangers baseball team with his own money that he earned? How about Trump? Without Trump's daddy Don is just a real estate guy in lower manhattan.

Yes, what Trump did was against the law. Please tell me you don't think it's ok for the president to strongarm another country into making up fake news against his opponent. Funny how much you guys bashed Bill for lying about one BJ because he was under oath but you embrace a pathalogical liar.

Can you cite in US Code what law was broken?
Or will you continue to lie, and spout off propaganda and falsehoods?
When you face your Creator, will you be able to tell Him that you are a man of truth?
Or will you hang your head in shame as a condemned and unrepentant man?

18 US Code 201
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

Omg you have evidence of bribery!?

 

[colfax_m]

Then why didn’t he ask the DoJ about it? He wanted to force Zelensky to announce an investigation. That’s not how our DoJ operates.

did you read the transcript? that's the evidence.

you believed schitt's fictional account. shame on you for following such a punk.

I read the transcript but not the one you’re thinking of.

then you know there was no mention of aid. you seemed confused there for a second. I'm still wondering what it is you think is wrong with discussing past communications? it's historical and has references.

when did the word Biden become a word one can't say? now it's illegal to say joe biden? really, that's what you're implying?

You need to read the transcripts of the testimony.

I did, nothing about aid. still wondering why you think biden's name is off limits? historical information is public knowledge. still waiting jack.

Then you’re illiterate.

 

[colfax_m]

So can the president decide to investigate anyone for anything?

Obviously not.

Ha ha ha,

you are flailing all over the place....

You are ignoring my post that destroys the absurd Bolton narrative desperate Schiff is trying to float.

Post 1020 you have ignored from the previous page of this thread.

You are an embarrassment to the human race with your galaxy level severe stupidity and ignorance.

You’re afraid. I get it. Don’t want Bolton to testify because it might upset the little fantasy you’ve created.

Do you understand even if Bolton says everything your looking for it’s still not against the law? You are wasting time

Why is Trump going to such lengths to convince us that he didn’t link aid and an investigation?

Because no one knows what your talking about, the aid went out, the Ukraine President has no idea what your talking about

Most of the aid went out. Some didn’t. The Ukrainians did know. We have lots of evidence. Your case is built on lies.

Trump claims aid and the investigation wasn’t linked. If Bolton testifies otherwise, it’ll continue to prove that Trump has been this whole time. That’s bad for the defense.

 

[Meister]

did you read the transcript? that's the evidence.

you believed schitt's fictional account. shame on you for following such a punk.

I read the transcript but not the one you’re thinking of.

then you know there was no mention of aid. you seemed confused there for a second. I'm still wondering what it is you think is wrong with discussing past communications? it's historical and has references.

when did the word Biden become a word one can't say? now it's illegal to say joe biden? really, that's what you're implying?

You need to read the transcripts of the testimony.

I did, nothing about aid. still wondering why you think biden's name is off limits? historical information is public knowledge. still waiting jack.

Then you’re illiterate.

That was a very poor deflection

 

[colfax_m]

I read the transcript but not the one you’re thinking of.

then you know there was no mention of aid. you seemed confused there for a second. I'm still wondering what it is you think is wrong with discussing past communications? it's historical and has references.

when did the word Biden become a word one can't say? now it's illegal to say joe biden? really, that's what you're implying?

You need to read the transcripts of the testimony.

I did, nothing about aid. still wondering why you think biden's name is off limits? historical information is public knowledge. still waiting jack.

Then you’re illiterate.

That was a very poor deflection

He’s playing dumb.

 

[Jitss617]

Ha ha ha,

you are flailing all over the place....

You are ignoring my post that destroys the absurd Bolton narrative desperate Schiff is trying to float.

Post 1020 you have ignored from the previous page of this thread.

You are an embarrassment to the human race with your galaxy level severe stupidity and ignorance.

You’re afraid. I get it. Don’t want Bolton to testify because it might upset the little fantasy you’ve created.

Do you understand even if Bolton says everything your looking for it’s still not against the law? You are wasting time

Why is Trump going to such lengths to convince us that he didn’t link aid and an investigation?

Because no one knows what your talking about, the aid went out, the Ukraine President has no idea what your talking about

Most of the aid went out. Some didn’t. The Ukrainians did know. We have lots of evidence. Your case is built on lies.

Trump claims aid and the investigation wasn’t linked. If Bolton testifies otherwise, it’ll continue to prove that Trump has been this whole time. That’s bad for the defense.

Trumps conversation still isn’t impeachable lol
And the aid went out. Gotta move on

 

[Meister]

did you read the transcript? that's the evidence.

you believed schitt's fictional account. shame on you for following such a punk.

I read the transcript but not the one you’re thinking of.

then you know there was no mention of aid. you seemed confused there for a second. I'm still wondering what it is you think is wrong with discussing past communications? it's historical and has references.

when did the word Biden become a word one can't say? now it's illegal to say joe biden? really, that's what you're implying?

You need to read the transcripts of the testimony.

I did, nothing about aid. still wondering why you think biden's name is off limits? historical information is public knowledge. still waiting jack.

Then you’re illiterate.

You do realize that the managers brought up Biden or Burisma in excess of 400 times during the proceedings, right?
That means that they both are open game. Good grief, if I was you I wouldn't be calling anyone illiterate....just sayin'

 

[jc456]

So can the president decide to investigate anyone for anything?

Obviously not.

Ha ha ha,

you are flailing all over the place....

You are ignoring my post that destroys the absurd Bolton narrative desperate Schiff is trying to float.

Post 1020 you have ignored from the previous page of this thread.

You are an embarrassment to the human race with your galaxy level severe stupidity and ignorance.

You’re afraid. I get it. Don’t want Bolton to testify because it might upset the little fantasy you’ve created.

Do you understand even if Bolton says everything your looking for it’s still not against the law? You are wasting time

Why is Trump going to such lengths to convince us that he didn’t link aid and an investigation?

Because no one knows what your talking about, the aid went out, the Ukraine President has no idea what your talking about

 

[Jitss617]

then you know there was no mention of aid. you seemed confused there for a second. I'm still wondering what it is you think is wrong with discussing past communications? it's historical and has references.

when did the word Biden become a word one can't say? now it's illegal to say joe biden? really, that's what you're implying?

You need to read the transcripts of the testimony.

I did, nothing about aid. still wondering why you think biden's name is off limits? historical information is public knowledge. still waiting jack.

Then you’re illiterate.

That was a very poor deflection

He’s playing dumb.

America doesn’t have thought police.. trump has a right to throw around ideas to his cabinet.. the aid went out .. no deal with a investigating.. yes it’s sucks for you

 

[jc456]

You’re afraid. I get it. Don’t want Bolton to testify because it might upset the little fantasy you’ve created.

Do you understand even if Bolton says everything your looking for it’s still not against the law? You are wasting time

Why is Trump going to such lengths to convince us that he didn’t link aid and an investigation?

Because no one knows what your talking about, the aid went out, the Ukraine President has no idea what your talking about

Most of the aid went out. Some didn’t. The Ukrainians did know. We have lots of evidence. Your case is built on lies.

Trump claims aid and the investigation wasn’t linked. If Bolton testifies otherwise, it’ll continue to prove that Trump has been this whole time. That’s bad for the defense.

Trumps conversation still isn’t impeachable lol
And the aid went out. Gotta move on

this guys like lucy