The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[colfax_m]

Ukraine isn't a scam. It's oversight.

it's foreign policy actually and the president owns that. know the law or shut up!

Congress oversees the executive including foreign policy. Don't be an idiot.

nope, post anything that says that. the president has sole ownership of foreign policy.

fk dude, yet again,

Foreign policy of the United States - Wikipedia

Powers of the President[edit]
The President sets the tone for all foreign policy. The State Department and all members design and implement all details to the President's policy. The Congress approves the President's picks for ambassadors and as a secondary function, can declare war. The President of the United States negotiates treaties with foreign nations, then treaties enter into force only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces. Both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The United States Secretary of State acts similarly to a foreign minister and under the President's leadership, is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

This is the stupidest argument you've put forth yet. Where does that say he isn't subject to oversight?

he can't go to war, that's all.

God this is idiotic. You're a complete moron. I don't even know how to explain this to you.

 

[Care4all]

The question is, were the subpoenas lawful, in that they were not issued by means of a vote by the full House to conduct an inquiry/investigation? AND, would the president's invocation of executive privilege be struck down by the court if they decided the subpoenas were in fact lawful? Those are questions that the democrats should have challenged, but didn't for purely political reasons. Which to me can only mean the Article for obstruction of Congress is bullshit.

Yes they were legal, and followed the rules set for the new Congress in 2019, Jan..... from what I have read.....

 

[jc456]

it's foreign policy actually and the president owns that. know the law or shut up!

Congress oversees the executive including foreign policy. Don't be an idiot.

nope, post anything that says that. the president has sole ownership of foreign policy.

fk dude, yet again,

Foreign policy of the United States - Wikipedia

Powers of the President[edit]
The President sets the tone for all foreign policy. The State Department and all members design and implement all details to the President's policy. The Congress approves the President's picks for ambassadors and as a secondary function, can declare war. The President of the United States negotiates treaties with foreign nations, then treaties enter into force only if ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President is also Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces. Both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The United States Secretary of State acts similarly to a foreign minister and under the President's leadership, is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

This is the stupidest argument you've put forth yet. Where does that say he isn't subject to oversight?

he can't go to war, that's all.

God this is idiotic. You're a complete moron. I don't even know how to explain this to you.

I don't want you to. you know nothing about it. so all you'll end up doing is continuing to show what you don't know. keep going though jack, irony loves you!

 

[jc456]

The question is, were the subpoenas lawful, in that they were not issued by means of a vote by the full House to conduct an inquiry/investigation? AND, would the president's invocation of executive privilege be struck down by the court if they decided the subpoenas were in fact lawful? Those are questions that the democrats should have challenged, but didn't for purely political reasons. Which to me can only mean the Article for obstruction of Congress is bullshit.

Yes they were legal, and followed the rules set for the new Congress in 2019, Jan..... from what I have read.....

or not.

 

[jc456]

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.

I can say it if I want to. shut up!!!

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make you cry, just shut up!!! Now you're whining. shit I hate whiners.

 

[B. Kidd]

Bolton has already received a hefty advancement from his publisher.
He'll do what his publisher tells him to do.
It's called being a 'tainted witness'.

 

[Care4all]

The question is, were the subpoenas lawful, in that they were not issued by means of a vote by the full House to conduct an inquiry/investigation? AND, would the president's invocation of executive privilege be struck down by the court if they decided the subpoenas were in fact lawful? Those are questions that the democrats should have challenged, but didn't for purely political reasons. Which to me can only mean the Article for obstruction of Congress is bullshit.

Yes they were legal, and followed the rules set for the new Congress in 2019, Jan..... from what I have read.....

or not.

I do not think there is any 'or not' wiggle room if it's in the present House rules... the Constitution gives Congress the power to set their own rules to govern themselves... the Majority governs that process.

 

[JLW]

The White House is now trying to suppress Bolton's book. I wonder why...LOL

Trump is afraid. Afraid of the truth being revealed. The truth that his entire administration is a one big shitshow.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Wow, I notice Bolten isn't on that list, but you also need to check the facts and stop relying on commie lies. But let's assume that is correct, why didn't the commies go to court to enforce their subpoenas? They are the ones that tried to shortcut the system. Now they're asking the senate to do the job the chose not to do.

.

 

[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.

Wow, I notice Bolten isn't on that list, but you also need to check the facts and stop relying on commie lies. But let's assume that is correct, why didn't the commies go to court to enforce their subpoenas? They are the ones that tried to shortcut the system. Now they're asking the senate to do the job the chose not to do.

.

Going to court would take years. By then it would be too late and the American people would be deprived of this information that they need to vote for the next president.

You say the House didn’t take to court. True.
The House isn’t asking the Senate to take it to court. They’re asking the Senate to call witnesses in a trial.

What do you think about a trial where witnesses can’t be called? Seems like it might not be a fair trial.

 

[bendog]

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 Senate won't convict even is Pomano shoots Biden on tv and says Trump ordered it. But imo it's a master stroke by Bolton. I mean really, how many people would plunk down 40 bucks for a book by the guy? BUT over a million people really want to know what he says Trump said. With Trump preventing him from testifying, even if there are enough senators willing to subpoena him ….. his book sales should be good. LOL

 

[jc456]

The question is, were the subpoenas lawful, in that they were not issued by means of a vote by the full House to conduct an inquiry/investigation? AND, would the president's invocation of executive privilege be struck down by the court if they decided the subpoenas were in fact lawful? Those are questions that the democrats should have challenged, but didn't for purely political reasons. Which to me can only mean the Article for obstruction of Congress is bullshit.

Yes they were legal, and followed the rules set for the new Congress in 2019, Jan..... from what I have read.....

or not.

I do not think there is any 'or not' wiggle room if it's in the present House rules... the Constitution gives Congress the power to set their own rules to govern themselves... the Majority governs that process.

accept for subpoena power, the courts decide.

 

[Meister]

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?

Testimony before the House exonerated Biden. You didn't know that?

What??????

 

[OKTexas]

Nope, let the commies dance with the witnesses they brought to the dance, after all they have an irrefutable case, right?

.

Scared, aren’t you.

Nope, Trump will be acquitted regardless, the commies just want to sling more mud. It's a waste of time.

.

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

The commies said they had a slam dunk case, what happened to that? The truth is the bidens are dirty as hell, you folks don't seem to interested in learning the facts about that.

.

There was more than enough testimony in front of the House to indict Trump. Republicans have a higher standard of proof than normal people so we really are going to have to slap them in the face with it.

There was more than enough testimony before the House to tell us that Biden wasn't doing anything wrong. You don't seem interested in acknowledging that.

Yeah right, baby biden got the job two days after Devon Archer met with poppa joe at the WH. Shoken was fired shortly after Devon Archer met with Kerry at the State Dept. Burisma bought access to the maobama regime, it's just that simple. Also it's been proven that 4 other close relatives of poppa joe made millions while poppa joe was VP. The bidens are drity as hell.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Scared, aren’t you.

Nope, Trump will be acquitted regardless, the commies just want to sling more mud. It's a waste of time.

.

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

The commies said they had a slam dunk case, what happened to that? The truth is the bidens are dirty as hell, you folks don't seem to interested in learning the facts about that.

.

There was more than enough testimony in front of the House to indict Trump. Republicans have a higher standard of proof than normal people so we really are going to have to slap them in the face with it.

There was more than enough testimony before the House to tell us that Biden wasn't doing anything wrong. You don't seem interested in acknowledging that.

Yeah right, baby biden got the job two days after Devon Archer met with poppa joe at the WH. Shoken was fired shortly after Devon Archer met with Kerry at the State Dept. Burisma bought access to the maobama regime, it's just that simple. Also it's been proven that 4 other close relatives of poppa joe made millions while poppa joe was VP. The bidens are drity as hell.

.

Does anyone at the State Dept back up your version of events?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Testimony before the House exonerated Biden. You didn't know that?

What??????

Shoulda read the testimony. The idea to fire Shokin didn’t come from Biden. It pulls out the lynchpin from the accusation.

 

[jc456]

Nope, Trump will be acquitted regardless, the commies just want to sling more mud. It's a waste of time.

.

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

The commies said they had a slam dunk case, what happened to that? The truth is the bidens are dirty as hell, you folks don't seem to interested in learning the facts about that.

.

There was more than enough testimony in front of the House to indict Trump. Republicans have a higher standard of proof than normal people so we really are going to have to slap them in the face with it.

There was more than enough testimony before the House to tell us that Biden wasn't doing anything wrong. You don't seem interested in acknowledging that.

Yeah right, baby biden got the job two days after Devon Archer met with poppa joe at the WH. Shoken was fired shortly after Devon Archer met with Kerry at the State Dept. Burisma bought access to the maobama regime, it's just that simple. Also it's been proven that 4 other close relatives of poppa joe made millions while poppa joe was VP. The bidens are drity as hell.

.

Does anyone at the State Dept back up your version of events?

go ask them

 

[jc456]

huh? dude, too fking special.

You didn't know that?

know what?

Testimony before the House exonerated Biden. You didn't know that?

What??????

Shoulda read the testimony. The idea to fire Shokin didn’t come from Biden. It pulls out the lynchpin from the accusation.

then biden lied on the video?

When did Biden testify?

 

[there4eyeM]

If it weren't already obvious to voters that both of the duopoly partners are dishonest, this current uproar cannot be expected to educate them.
We need a thorough cleaning out of our representative government.

 

[Meister]

huh? dude, too fking special.

You didn't know that?

know what?

Testimony before the House exonerated Biden. You didn't know that?

What??????

Shoulda read the testimony. The idea to fire Shokin didn’t come from Biden. It pulls out the lynchpin from the accusation.

No it doesn't.....only to a partisan hack would it