The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[colfax_m]

Well the witnesses were discovered but wouldn't testify without court orders that would have taken months. But it's clear that the gop senate isn't gonna do anything even if Trump shoots someone on 5th ave.

Four Gop senators may want some show of witnesses to try and claim they had open minds to an already foregone vote.

And it doesn't matter to the polling. The only actual effect may be if this stretches out into the SOTU speech and Trump loses it on TV and goes into a rage for all to see

all legal, they chose not to wait, it's on them, no one else.

Incorrect. Guess what would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

if one challenges a subpoena, it goes to court. fk man, use the internet.

How to Object to a Service of a Subpoena

Exactly. Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas. He ignored them.

What happens if you ignore a subpoena?

Someone takes you to court to make them enforce the subpoena. In this case the Dems failed to do this.

If you don't want to respond to a subpoena, you take it to court to challenge it. Trump failed to do so.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Democrat House Managers failed and they lied to you... enjoy..

The House managers tried but were obstructed.
The Senate hasn’t tried, therefore they are failing the American people and violating their oath.

Obstructed by their own stupidity, they could have made their case in the House impeachment process using the courts but they failed to do so.

That makes them losers and now merely crybabies.. These people you support are stupid, accept responsibility for them making a fool out of you and move along, grow up and quit making excuses for your lack of critical thought.

View attachment 303061

How long would it have taken to get their case through the courts. Any idea?

You don't know either, so why did they choose not to try?

Overconfidence, incompetence or outright stupidity?

BTW, a friend of mine just texted me that he read that Fienstein is voting acquittal. oops much?

Well, she said she vote for acquittal and then someone got to her and showed her the suicide not she would leave behind if she did. In a few hours, she did a complete 180.

 

[jc456]

yes they did. the lawyers presented their evidence. sorry fat fkk

You're lying or too stupid to know the difference. Trump did not contest the subpoenas.

again, I'm not going to litigate with you the trump lawyers 18 hours where they presented what happened with those subpoena's. sorry fat fk, go read up.

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

he didn't need to, they weren't from a court, they were from the house dems, and they challenged their subpoena, not going to relitigate with you fk face.

 

[jc456]

all legal, they chose not to wait, it's on them, no one else.

Incorrect. Guess what would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

if one challenges a subpoena, it goes to court. fk man, use the internet.

How to Object to a Service of a Subpoena

Exactly. Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas. He ignored them.

What happens if you ignore a subpoena?

Someone takes you to court to make them enforce the subpoena. In this case the Dems failed to do this.

If you don't want to respond to a subpoena, you take it to court to challenge it. Trump failed to do so.

you didn't read the link I provided. you're a fk face as a result. continuing a failed argument after facts were presented to you. fk off.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

yes they did. the lawyers presented their evidence. sorry fat fkk

You're lying or too stupid to know the difference. Trump did not contest the subpoenas.

again, I'm not going to litigate with you the trump lawyers 18 hours where they presented what happened with those subpoena's. sorry fat fk, go read up.

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

In the case of Executive Privilege, they damn well do. Why don't you educate yourself instead of tying up this thread with your stupid middle school education?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

BTW, a friend of mine just texted me that he read that Fienstein is voting acquittal. oops much?

Awesome if true, and telling.

 

[iceberg]

How can Republicans not vote for witnesses after this?

How can Dems NOT understand there was NO crime.
Biden needs to be investigated, not Trump. Stupid Dems impeached a wrong person.

P.S. Bolton must be still mad on Trump for firing sorry as*, oh, pardon, His sorry Hawkness.

As most sane people know by now - impeachment doesn't require a "crime".

as much crazy ass extremist shit as you post, you'd not recognize "sanity" anyway.

sanity in my world is ending the extreme always hate bullshit you lob out.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

In the case of Executive Privilege, they damn well do. Why don't you educate yourself instead of tying up this thread with your stupid middle school education?

I've been trying to tell these stupid shits this for days. I'm through babysitting.

 

[colfax_m]

You're lying or too stupid to know the difference. Trump did not contest the subpoenas.

again, I'm not going to litigate with you the trump lawyers 18 hours where they presented what happened with those subpoena's. sorry fat fk, go read up.

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

In the case of Executive Privilege, they damn well do. Why don't you educate yourself instead of tying up this thread with your stupid middle school education?

Good point. Trump never claimed executive privilege. There's good reasons for him not to claim it, because he'd likely lose and quickly.

 

[jc456]

again, I'm not going to litigate with you the trump lawyers 18 hours where they presented what happened with those subpoena's. sorry fat fk, go read up.

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

In the case of Executive Privilege, they damn well do. Why don't you educate yourself instead of tying up this thread with your stupid middle school education?

Good point. Trump never claimed executive privilege. There's good reasons for him not to claim it, because he'd likely lose and quickly.

or, he didn't have to, his lawyers merely stated the subpoena's were invalid. take us to court. the dems didn't. end of story.

 

[colfax_m]

Incorrect. Guess what would happen if you ignored a subpoena?

if one challenges a subpoena, it goes to court. fk man, use the internet.

How to Object to a Service of a Subpoena

Exactly. Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas. He ignored them.

What happens if you ignore a subpoena?

Someone takes you to court to make them enforce the subpoena. In this case the Dems failed to do this.

If you don't want to respond to a subpoena, you take it to court to challenge it. Trump failed to do so.

you didn't read the link I provided. you're a fk face as a result. continuing a failed argument after facts were presented to you. fk off.

Are you saying the letter from October is an adequate response?

 

[colfax_m]

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

In the case of Executive Privilege, they damn well do. Why don't you educate yourself instead of tying up this thread with your stupid middle school education?

Good point. Trump never claimed executive privilege. There's good reasons for him not to claim it, because he'd likely lose and quickly.

or, he didn't have to, his lawyers merely stated the subpoena's were invalid. take us to court. the dems didn't. end of story.

Does the executive have the power to declare a subpoena is invalid? Where does it say the Dems had to take them to court over it?

 

[Care4all]

Unless proven otherwise, Bolton’s book is opinion thus fiction
First we impeach over a whistleblower, now with Dems unhappy about their own witness work we need to put the world on its head over what “witnessing” might come from an unreleased book.

It wasn't just a whistleblower, it was a whistleblower complaint that was determined by the IC-IG to be both credible and urgent. If the WB complaint had no legs when the IG investigated the complaint.... it would have been dismissed by the IG.

Also, 2 to 3 other witnesses on the call raised concerns at the time of the call and reported it to supervisors and Dept Legal Counsel... before the WB Complaint was filed.

The president stopped all first hand witnesses from testifying on a BOGUS claim of absolute immunity. He ordered them not to even show up and assert executive privilege on questions that he actually had privilege on....

It would have been years working through the courts because the Trump administration is appealing at every turn.... the courts on Don McGhan testimony have all ruled in favor of Congress... it's been 10 months, now it is heading to the SC.... another half year wait.

The Senate, if exec privilege is asserted on witnesses, a request to EXPEDITE in the courts would be approved because it is in Trial, and we could have a SC ruling within 3 weeks.

 

[colfax_m]

You're lying or too stupid to know the difference. Trump did not contest the subpoenas.

again, I'm not going to litigate with you the trump lawyers 18 hours where they presented what happened with those subpoena's. sorry fat fk, go read up.

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

he didn't need to, they weren't from a court, they were from the house dems, and they challenged their subpoena, not going to relitigate with you fk face.

I'll give that one to you. I'm wrong. Sorry. My bad.

What grounds were they challenged on?

 

[jc456]

if one challenges a subpoena, it goes to court. fk man, use the internet.

How to Object to a Service of a Subpoena

Exactly. Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas. He ignored them.

What happens if you ignore a subpoena?

Someone takes you to court to make them enforce the subpoena. In this case the Dems failed to do this.

If you don't want to respond to a subpoena, you take it to court to challenge it. Trump failed to do so.

you didn't read the link I provided. you're a fk face as a result. continuing a failed argument after facts were presented to you. fk off.

Are you saying the letter from October is an adequate response?

the lawyers said it was. take it up with them. or the dems. not sure where you're going. the litigation is done now.

 

[colfax_m]

Exactly. Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas. He ignored them.

What happens if you ignore a subpoena?

Someone takes you to court to make them enforce the subpoena. In this case the Dems failed to do this.

If you don't want to respond to a subpoena, you take it to court to challenge it. Trump failed to do so.

you didn't read the link I provided. you're a fk face as a result. continuing a failed argument after facts were presented to you. fk off.

Are you saying the letter from October is an adequate response?

the lawyers said it was. take it up with them. or the dems. not sure where you're going. the litigation is done now.

Congress said it wasn't. That's part of why he was impeached

 

[jc456]

again, I'm not going to litigate with you the trump lawyers 18 hours where they presented what happened with those subpoena's. sorry fat fk, go read up.

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

he didn't need to, they weren't from a court, they were from the house dems, and they challenged their subpoena, not going to relitigate with you fk face.

I'll give that one to you. I'm wrong. Sorry. My bad.

What grounds were they challenged on?

the lawyers stated why, go read up.

 

[jc456]

Someone takes you to court to make them enforce the subpoena. In this case the Dems failed to do this.

If you don't want to respond to a subpoena, you take it to court to challenge it. Trump failed to do so.

you didn't read the link I provided. you're a fk face as a result. continuing a failed argument after facts were presented to you. fk off.

Are you saying the letter from October is an adequate response?

the lawyers said it was. take it up with them. or the dems. not sure where you're going. the litigation is done now.

Congress said it wasn't. That's part of why he was impeached

and where we're at. again, the facts don't support the demofks. go tell the lawyers. I expect they know the law. you're a message board flunky. I actually don't give a shit how you feel.

 

[joaquinmiller]

You're lying or too stupid to know the difference. Trump did not contest the subpoenas.

again, I'm not going to litigate with you the trump lawyers 18 hours where they presented what happened with those subpoena's. sorry fat fk, go read up.

They didn't challenge the subpoenas in court. Patrick Philbin didn't claim otherwise. You're too stupid to know the difference.

they don't have to, you didn't read from the link. they challenged the dems that their subpoena's were invalid. That meant they had to take it court to have a court say they were. again, not going to litigate the case with you it was presented before the senate, go read.

So you're saying Trump didn't challenge the subpoenas in court? Glad we could agree. The executive doesn't get to deem subpoenas invalid. They don't have that power.

In the case of Executive Privilege, they damn well do. Why don't you educate yourself instead of tying up this thread with your stupid middle school education?

Executive Privilege has to be claimed over specific information and/or specific witnesses. There's no such thing as blanket executive privilege. That's possibly why it wasn't legally asserted.

The admin did write a crackpot, bullshit letter on Oct. 8, 2019, claiming the Impeachment Inquiry wasn't constitutionally-valid. A federal judge ruled on October 25, 2019, that it is.

Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Congress said it wasn't. That's part of why he was impeached

Trump is being impeached because he represents an existential threat to the globalist deep state and they can't beat him
at the ballot box. So they've dreamed up this impeachment farce which is being handle with extreme incompetence.