The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[colfax_m]

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.

Trump's lawyers are making really stupid arguments. It's a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility.

Experts: White House has dubious reasons to ignore subpoenas

They know the law and they know their arguments are bogus. They aren't made in good faith. They're made to delay.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Congress could have taken this to court and gotten it settled quickly and easily. Meanwhile Trump's other lawyers are in court obstructing, delaying and grinding the process to a halt.

These aren't honest people we're dealing with.

 

[Olde Europe]

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

You can tell, from that story alone, how much there is to the Trump's "defense" team's claims to respect of the judiciary, and to defense of the Constitution, and the Constitutional Separation of Powers in particular.

Don't know whether you've noticed how much ado they made about the team being comprised of "lawyers" - as if in their case that was a positive distinction from the politicians among the House Managers. Whatever, there should be ethics complaints galore, and licenses in jeopardy, over the tsunami of lies.

 

[jc456]

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.

Trump's lawyers are making really stupid arguments. It's a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility.

Experts: White House has dubious reasons to ignore subpoenas

They know the law and they know their arguments are bogus. They aren't made in good faith. They're made to delay.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Congress could have taken this to court and gotten it settled quickly and easily. Meanwhile Trump's other lawyers are in court obstructing, delaying and grinding the process to a halt.

These aren't honest people we're dealing with.

I care why? I read the law as it is written, the dems needed to take it to court. sorry fat fk, I give two shits your opinion on the matter.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Incompetent? Seems like they're doing a fine job to me. It's in trial at the Senate. Arguments being made. Trump's corruption is being exposed.

 

[joaquinmiller]

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

You can tell, from that story alone, how much there is to the Trump's "defense" team's claims to respect of the judiciary, and to defense of the Constitution, and the Constitutional Separation of Powers in particular.

Don't know whether you've noticed how much ado they made about the team being comprised of "lawyers" - as if in their case that was a positive distinction from the politicians among the House Managers. Whatever, there should be ethics claims galore, and licenses in jeopardy, over the tsunami of lies.

There should be - from Saturday alone.

I felt silly posting the link above, knowing evidence isn't accepted. But wtf, anyway!

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Trump's lawyers are making really stupid arguments. It's a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility.

Experts: White House has dubious reasons to ignore subpoenas

They know the law and they know their arguments are bogus. They aren't made in good faith. They're made to delay.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Congress could have taken this to court and gotten it settled quickly and easily. Meanwhile Trump's other lawyers are in court obstructing, delaying and grinding the process to a halt.

These aren't honest people we're dealing with.

I care why? I read the law as it is written, the dems needed to take it to court. sorry fat fk, I give two shits your opinion on the matter.

What law says the Dems need to take it to court?

 

[joaquinmiller]

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

You can tell, from that story alone, how much there is to the Trump's "defense" team's claims to respect of the judiciary, and to defense of the Constitution, and the Constitutional Separation of Powers in particular.

Don't know whether you've noticed how much ado they made about the team being comprised of "lawyers" - as if in their case that was a positive distinction from the politicians among the House Managers. Whatever, there should be ethics claims galore, and licenses in jeopardy, over the tsunami of lies.

The politicians (House) made legal arguments, while the lawyers (Trump) made political arguments. Schiff, in particular, did some impressive lawyering. (Cue the wingnuts)

 

[jc456]

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.

Incompetent? Seems like they're doing a fine job to me. It's in trial at the Senate. Arguments being made. Trump's corruption is being exposed.

so the DNC is interfering in the 2020 elections. that's all. everyone knows it. congrats, they are biased anti american assholes.

 

[jc456]

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.

Trump's lawyers are making really stupid arguments. It's a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility.

Experts: White House has dubious reasons to ignore subpoenas

They know the law and they know their arguments are bogus. They aren't made in good faith. They're made to delay.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Congress could have taken this to court and gotten it settled quickly and easily. Meanwhile Trump's other lawyers are in court obstructing, delaying and grinding the process to a halt.

These aren't honest people we're dealing with.

I care why? I read the law as it is written, the dems needed to take it to court. sorry fat fk, I give two shits your opinion on the matter.

What law says the Dems need to take it to court?

the acquittal that is coming.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mainly biden admitting on national TV that the Ukraine better fire the prosecutor investigating the company Jr works for

We have what Joe bragged about recorded. Why do you lie about what he said. He never mentioned his son.

Biden wasn't even on the board when the corruption they were investigation occurred. No crime in offering Hunter a job and no crime in Hunter accepting a job. The only crime is the Strong Arm Shakedown of the Ukraine Trumpublicans conspired together on to attack the entire Democrat half of the Country. We're going to find out who else was conspiring with the Orange Turd too. Bolton, probably not conspiring........that's just funny...Bolton..!!

and the rich[Bidens] get richer ...please dont complain about the good ole boy system in government in the future .....

Trumpybear whining about the good ole boy system is like an erupting volcano whining about a campfire on the hillside below.!

 

[jc456]

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

You can tell, from that story alone, how much there is to the Trump's "defense" team's claims to respect of the judiciary, and to defense of the Constitution, and the Constitutional Separation of Powers in particular.

Don't know whether you've noticed how much ado they made about the team being comprised of "lawyers" - as if in their case that was a positive distinction from the politicians among the House Managers. Whatever, there should be ethics claims galore, and licenses in jeopardy, over the tsunami of lies.

The politicians (House) made legal arguments, while the lawyers (Trump) made political arguments. Schiff, in particular, did some impressive lawyering. (Cue the wingnuts)

oh for fk sake. dude, this is simply magical.

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

Trump's lawyers are making really stupid arguments. It's a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility.

Experts: White House has dubious reasons to ignore subpoenas

They know the law and they know their arguments are bogus. They aren't made in good faith. They're made to delay.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Congress could have taken this to court and gotten it settled quickly and easily. Meanwhile Trump's other lawyers are in court obstructing, delaying and grinding the process to a halt.

These aren't honest people we're dealing with.

I care why? I read the law as it is written, the dems needed to take it to court. sorry fat fk, I give two shits your opinion on the matter.

What law says the Dems need to take it to court?

THE

CON

STI

TU

TION

 

[joaquinmiller]

That didn't take long.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Trump's lawyers are making really stupid arguments. It's a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility.

Experts: White House has dubious reasons to ignore subpoenas

They know the law and they know their arguments are bogus. They aren't made in good faith. They're made to delay.

Trump's lawyers are arguing that Congress could have taken this to court and gotten it settled quickly and easily. Meanwhile Trump's other lawyers are in court obstructing, delaying and grinding the process to a halt.

These aren't honest people we're dealing with.

I care why? I read the law as it is written, the dems needed to take it to court. sorry fat fk, I give two shits your opinion on the matter.

What law says the Dems need to take it to court?

the acquittal that is coming.

Probably. But it's going to come at a cost.

 

[Olde Europe]

The politicians (House) made legal arguments, while the lawyers (Trump) made political arguments. Schiff, in particular, did some impressive lawyering. (Cue the wingnuts)

There were, of course, some political arguments made by the Managers, and some rhetorical flourishes, but they kept it low-volume, fact-based, and reasonable. I was impressed - to my surprise, actually. Pelosi obviously had read them the riot act, preemptively, and it worked. So much so that no reasonable observer could miss the difference.

Oh, and, keep up the links. And the evidence, too. Let's have some distinction from the wingnuts, even though they probably won't appreciate it very much.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Incompetent? Seems like they're doing a fine job to me. It's in trial at the Senate. Arguments being made. Trump's corruption is being exposed.

so the DNC is interfering in the 2020 elections. that's all. everyone knows it. congrats, they are biased anti american assholes.

The Democratic National Committee is interfering in the elections? Yeah. No shit. They're a political organization. That makes them biased for their party. What the hell do you think they do? I got news for you. The RNC is also interfering in elections. I bet you think I'm an asshole that's interfering in elections to because I'm going to vote. Damn. I'm so anti-American.

Good gravy, this is getting dumber and dumber.

 

[jc456]

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.

Incompetent? Seems like they're doing a fine job to me. It's in trial at the Senate. Arguments being made. Trump's corruption is being exposed.

so the DNC is interfering in the 2020 elections. that's all. everyone knows it. congrats, they are biased anti american assholes.

The Democratic National Committee is interfering in the elections? Yeah. No shit. They're a political organization. That makes them biased for their party. What the hell do you think they do? I got news for you. The RNC is also interfering in elections. I bet you think I'm an asshole that's interfering in elections to because I'm going to vote. Damn. I'm so anti-American.

Good gravy, this is getting dumber and dumber.

how's that different than trump and the GOP then?

 

[joaquinmiller]

The politicians (House) made legal arguments, while the lawyers (Trump) made political arguments. Schiff, in particular, did some impressive lawyering. (Cue the wingnuts)

There were, of course, some political arguments made by the Managers, and some rhetorical flourishes, but they kept it low-volume, fact-based, and reasonable. I was impressed - to my surprise, actually. Pelosi obviously had read them the riot act, preemptively, and it worked. So much so that no reasonable observer could miss the difference.

Oh, and, keep up the links. And the evidence, too. Let's have some distinction from the wingnuts, even though they probably won't appreciate it very much.

I was surprised, too. And it was immediately obvious the House managers had used their time to prepare a slick, convincing presentation. It was almost equally obvious Trump's lawyers spent the holidays polishing their FOX talking points.

 

[jc456]

The politicians (House) made legal arguments, while the lawyers (Trump) made political arguments. Schiff, in particular, did some impressive lawyering. (Cue the wingnuts)

There were, of course, some political arguments made by the Managers, and some rhetorical flourishes, but they kept it low-volume, fact-based, and reasonable. I was impressed - to my surprise, actually. Pelosi obviously had read them the riot act, preemptively, and it worked. So much so that no reasonable observer could miss the difference.

Oh, and, keep up the links. And the evidence, too. Let's have some distinction from the wingnuts, even though they probably won't appreciate it very much.

fact based? what fact? name one. Just one. I have a transcript that shows their facts are fantasy. You need to see it again?

 

[jc456]

The politicians (House) made legal arguments, while the lawyers (Trump) made political arguments. Schiff, in particular, did some impressive lawyering. (Cue the wingnuts)

There were, of course, some political arguments made by the Managers, and some rhetorical flourishes, but they kept it low-volume, fact-based, and reasonable. I was impressed - to my surprise, actually. Pelosi obviously had read them the riot act, preemptively, and it worked. So much so that no reasonable observer could miss the difference.

Oh, and, keep up the links. And the evidence, too. Let's have some distinction from the wingnuts, even though they probably won't appreciate it very much.

I was surprised, too. And it was immediately obvious the House managers had used their time to prepare a slick, convincing presentation. It was almost equally obvious Trump's lawyers spent the holidays polishing their FOX talking points.

they presented that the case should be dismissed, once they said they needed witnesses.