The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[colfax_m]

The minority party wasn't interested in truth. They were interested in side shows. Republicans in Congress had years to investigate Biden and Burisma. They didn't do it.

But Trump was digging for dirt on him ????

Trump was digging for dirt on him. Probably more to the point, he was trying to use an investigation to cast a cloud on his candidacy. Notice how no one cared about this until Biden started running for president.

well again, the irony. you missed the presentation by the trump lawyer. dude, you're far behind on this. I'm sure you had your fingers in your ears, right?

I caught what I could. I didn't hear anything new.

again, had your fingers in your ears to then write that post.

Got anything original to contribute?

 

[jc456]

Since when is getting to the truth a waste of time?

Seems the truth was a waste of time in the House impeachment proceedings.
The dems made sure they weren't going to hear the truth with the limitations applied to
the minority party

The minority party wasn't interested in truth. They were interested in side shows. Republicans in Congress had years to investigate Biden and Burisma. They didn't do it.

Whatever floats your boat, colfax. The FACTS still remain that Schiff made sure that the minority party's ability to defend Trump was stifled.

They weren't mounting a defense of Trump. They were mounting an attack on Biden.

I see you do support corruption when it's YOUR team.

oh the irony huh?

 

[colfax_m]

Since when is getting to the truth a waste of time?

Seems the truth was a waste of time in the House impeachment proceedings.
The dems made sure they weren't going to hear the truth with the limitations applied to
the minority party

The minority party wasn't interested in truth. They were interested in side shows. Republicans in Congress had years to investigate Biden and Burisma. They didn't do it.

Whatever floats your boat, colfax. The FACTS still remain that Schiff made sure that the minority party's ability to defend Trump was stifled.

They weren't mounting a defense of Trump. They were mounting an attack on Biden.

I see you do support corruption when it's YOUR team.

Not supporting anything of the sort. The testimony from heard was more than enough to disprove the allegations against Biden.

 

[jc456]

But Trump was digging for dirt on him ????

Trump was digging for dirt on him. Probably more to the point, he was trying to use an investigation to cast a cloud on his candidacy. Notice how no one cared about this until Biden started running for president.

well again, the irony. you missed the presentation by the trump lawyer. dude, you're far behind on this. I'm sure you had your fingers in your ears, right?

I caught what I could. I didn't hear anything new.

again, had your fingers in your ears to then write that post.

Got anything original to contribute?

I provided you with a link, you didn't read it. you wish to continue to be an asshole. Come out of your ass and talk in the thread with respect and we'll see.

 

[jc456]

Seems the truth was a waste of time in the House impeachment proceedings.
The dems made sure they weren't going to hear the truth with the limitations applied to
the minority party

The minority party wasn't interested in truth. They were interested in side shows. Republicans in Congress had years to investigate Biden and Burisma. They didn't do it.

Whatever floats your boat, colfax. The FACTS still remain that Schiff made sure that the minority party's ability to defend Trump was stifled.

They weren't mounting a defense of Trump. They were mounting an attack on Biden.

I see you do support corruption when it's YOUR team.

Not supporting anything of the sort. The testimony from heard was more than enough to disprove the allegations against Biden.

huh? dude, too fking special.

 

[colfax_m]

The minority party wasn't interested in truth. They were interested in side shows. Republicans in Congress had years to investigate Biden and Burisma. They didn't do it.

they had the transcript of the call that was supposed to contain impeachable offenses, and didn't. those republicans? they actually read the transcript and didn't listen to the parody presented by schitt's? yeah I trust them.

The transcript is part of a much larger story you're trying desperately to ignore.

no it isn't, the entire proceeding was the call. only witnesses were there for a call. and we have the transcript of that call. your friend irony can't seem to get away from you.

That's a lie.

prove it was more. name a witness.

Name a witness that what? Stop babbling and pretend like you have a college education.

 

[Meister]

Seems the truth was a waste of time in the House impeachment proceedings.
The dems made sure they weren't going to hear the truth with the limitations applied to
the minority party

The minority party wasn't interested in truth. They were interested in side shows. Republicans in Congress had years to investigate Biden and Burisma. They didn't do it.

Whatever floats your boat, colfax. The FACTS still remain that Schiff made sure that the minority party's ability to defend Trump was stifled.

They weren't mounting a defense of Trump. They were mounting an attack on Biden.

I see you do support corruption when it's YOUR team.

Not supporting anything of the sort. The testimony from heard was more than enough to disprove the allegations against Biden.

Like I said....whatever floats your boat, colfax.

 

[OKTexas]

Why Didn't Dem's Subpoena Them During Their Failed "Investigations" ??

They did.

They Did Not

Yes they did. Yet they got a blanket response.

When did they take that subpoena to court to have it enforced?

It is just a figment of your pathetically screwed imagination.

The asked them to appear, the only subpoena that was issued was taken to court and the commies withdrew it.

.

 

[jc456]

they had the transcript of the call that was supposed to contain impeachable offenses, and didn't. those republicans? they actually read the transcript and didn't listen to the parody presented by schitt's? yeah I trust them.

The transcript is part of a much larger story you're trying desperately to ignore.

no it isn't, the entire proceeding was the call. only witnesses were there for a call. and we have the transcript of that call. your friend irony can't seem to get away from you.

That's a lie.

prove it was more. name a witness.

Name a witness that what? Stop babbling and pretend like you have a college education.

wasn't related to the call.

 

[colfax_m]

The minority party wasn't interested in truth. They were interested in side shows. Republicans in Congress had years to investigate Biden and Burisma. They didn't do it.

Whatever floats your boat, colfax. The FACTS still remain that Schiff made sure that the minority party's ability to defend Trump was stifled.

They weren't mounting a defense of Trump. They were mounting an attack on Biden.

I see you do support corruption when it's YOUR team.

Not supporting anything of the sort. The testimony from heard was more than enough to disprove the allegations against Biden.

huh? dude, too fking special.

You didn't know that?

 

[colfax_m]

The transcript is part of a much larger story you're trying desperately to ignore.

no it isn't, the entire proceeding was the call. only witnesses were there for a call. and we have the transcript of that call. your friend irony can't seem to get away from you.

That's a lie.

prove it was more. name a witness.

Name a witness that what? Stop babbling and pretend like you have a college education.

wasn't related to the call.

Laura Cooper.

 

[colfax_m]

Why Didn't Dem's Subpoena Them During Their Failed "Investigations" ??

They did.

They Did Not

Yes they did. Yet they got a blanket response.

When did they take that subpoena to court to have it enforced?

It is just a figment of your pathetically screwed imagination.

The asked them to appear, the only subpoena that was issued was taken to court and the commies withdrew it.

.

That's not true. Article 2 of the impeachment says this:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

 

[jc456]

Whatever floats your boat, colfax. The FACTS still remain that Schiff made sure that the minority party's ability to defend Trump was stifled.

They weren't mounting a defense of Trump. They were mounting an attack on Biden.

I see you do support corruption when it's YOUR team.

Not supporting anything of the sort. The testimony from heard was more than enough to disprove the allegations against Biden.

huh? dude, too fking special.

You didn't know that?

know what?

 

[jc456]

They did.

They Did Not

Yes they did. Yet they got a blanket response.

When did they take that subpoena to court to have it enforced?

It is just a figment of your pathetically screwed imagination.

The asked them to appear, the only subpoena that was issued was taken to court and the commies withdrew it.

.

That's not true. Article 2 of the impeachment says this:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

again, the trump lawyers stated what happened, they weren't legitimate since the whole house didn't vote on them. still relitigating this. dude, I gave you the link to all they needed to do. read it or shut up already, this repeated nonsense of yours is growing quite tiresome.

 

[the other mike]

Onto Dems plan Z--kill Rudy.

 

[jc456]

no it isn't, the entire proceeding was the call. only witnesses were there for a call. and we have the transcript of that call. your friend irony can't seem to get away from you.

That's a lie.

prove it was more. name a witness.

Name a witness that what? Stop babbling and pretend like you have a college education.

wasn't related to the call.

Laura Cooper.

or not. dude, you're flailing horribly

Laura Cooper testifies that Ukraine knew of stalled aid far earlier than White House claims – video

 

[jc456]

They did.

They Did Not

Yes they did. Yet they got a blanket response.

When did they take that subpoena to court to have it enforced?

It is just a figment of your pathetically screwed imagination.

The asked them to appear, the only subpoena that was issued was taken to court and the commies withdrew it.

.

That's not true. Article 2 of the impeachment says this:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

the DOJ said it wasn't lawful. until you get such credentials, shut up.

 

[protectionist]

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!?

solicitation, with a quid pro quo for personal gain.... government corruption, corrupt use of govt power or position..... still looking for the Statute number,

but found those other two in my search!

There is nothing "for personal gain"

He’s trying to steal the election.

That's what Democrats are doing.

 

[colfax_m]

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!?

solicitation, with a quid pro quo for personal gain.... government corruption, corrupt use of govt power or position..... still looking for the Statute number,

but found those other two in my search!

There is nothing "for personal gain"

He’s trying to steal the election.

That's what Democrats are doing.

How?

 

[colfax_m]

They Did Not

Yes they did. Yet they got a blanket response.

When did they take that subpoena to court to have it enforced?

It is just a figment of your pathetically screwed imagination.

The asked them to appear, the only subpoena that was issued was taken to court and the commies withdrew it.

.

That's not true. Article 2 of the impeachment says this:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

the DOJ said it wasn't lawful. until you get such credentials, shut up.

You don't get to tell anyone when to shut up.