The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[OKTexas]

Yeah, shortly after Shokin raided the home of the Burisma owner and attorneys and Archer had meetings with the State Dept and Kerry. There's at the very least an appearance of impropriety. Wouldn't you agree?

.

If that's all you knew about the situation, that might sound bad. However, that ignores a lot of exculpatory information which turns this from having the appearance of impropriety to not being a concern.

And of course you can prove the policies that resulted form those meetings those meetings weren't what were discussed in the house testimony, right?

.

Well, the testimony says that Shokin wasn't removed because of those meetings you've referenced. Contemporaneous reporting corroborates it. What evidence is there that some policy did change because of them?

Once again, the timeline goes against you, why didn't they demand Shokin be fired months earlier?

.

The timeline is completely circumstantial. The noncircumstantial evidence goes against you.

They were pushing for his dismissal for several months. The loan guarantees were about to be committed so that gave them the leverage to finally get the prosecutor fired.

So tell the class exactly when the loan guarantees were authorized relative to the demand.

.

 

[colfax_m]

If that's all you knew about the situation, that might sound bad. However, that ignores a lot of exculpatory information which turns this from having the appearance of impropriety to not being a concern.

And of course you can prove the policies that resulted form those meetings those meetings weren't what were discussed in the house testimony, right?

.

Well, the testimony says that Shokin wasn't removed because of those meetings you've referenced. Contemporaneous reporting corroborates it. What evidence is there that some policy did change because of them?

Once again, the timeline goes against you, why didn't they demand Shokin be fired months earlier?

.

The timeline is completely circumstantial. The noncircumstantial evidence goes against you.

They were pushing for his dismissal for several months. The loan guarantees were about to be committed so that gave them the leverage to finally get the prosecutor fired.

According to your House Managers, withholding aid is an impeachable offense.

That's a lie.

 

[bluzman61]

The "bombshell" that went "P...fff.....t".......

 

[colfax_m]

If that's all you knew about the situation, that might sound bad. However, that ignores a lot of exculpatory information which turns this from having the appearance of impropriety to not being a concern.

And of course you can prove the policies that resulted form those meetings those meetings weren't what were discussed in the house testimony, right?

.

Well, the testimony says that Shokin wasn't removed because of those meetings you've referenced. Contemporaneous reporting corroborates it. What evidence is there that some policy did change because of them?

Once again, the timeline goes against you, why didn't they demand Shokin be fired months earlier?

.

The timeline is completely circumstantial. The noncircumstantial evidence goes against you.

They were pushing for his dismissal for several months. The loan guarantees were about to be committed so that gave them the leverage to finally get the prosecutor fired.

So tell the class exactly when the loan guarantees were authorized relative to the demand.

.

Depends on what you mean by authorized. Here's some timelines that look pretty solid to me.

U.S. To Move Forward With $1 Billion Loan Guarantee For Ukraine

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

 

[Faun]

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.

.

Since when does Congress have to go to court to enforce a subpoena? Court is an option, but it's not their only option.

 

[Faun]

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.

.

Idiot, we had been trying to get Shokin out for six months before he was finally sacked. Others had been trying even longer. Shokin wasn't pursuing Zelensky but Shokin's replacement did. Getting Shokin out had nothing to do Archer, Kerry or Hunter Biden.

 

[Faun]

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.

There were 18 witnesses called in the house, the republicans weren't allowed to call any with the exception of a constitutional lawyer. If they needed more witnesses to make their case, the commies should have gone through the established process to get them. The house even violated their own rules to refuse minority hearing days in BOTH committees.

.

There was no defensive case to make as the trial is the place for that.

 

[Jitss617]

I totally think trump is trolling democrats with this book chapter released lol

Bolton will be called and destroys democrats

 

[Faun]

Please tell. Who?

State dept emails and visitor list released under FOIA.

.

Still looking for evidence anyone did anything wrong. Devon Archer meeting with Kerry isn't illegal. Neither is a lawyer from Burisma meeting with the State Dept. The allegation is that Burisma got the Biden's to fire Shokin. There's no evidence that happened. Actually evidence to the contrary.

Really, possibly the most corrupt business in Ukraine had access to some of the highest levels of our government. You don't see that as a problem? Then you have our government officials violating the tenants of the UN charter by interfering in the internal affairs of another country. You don't see that as a problem?

.

There is no tenant in the UN charter that prevents us from creating conditions to our monetary aid.

A lawyer at Burisma might have gotten a meeting with someone you've never heard of before. I'd be more worried if they actually affected policy. Which they didn't.

LMAO, they got the prosecutor in Ukraine fired not too long after he raided the home of the Burisma owner. I'd say they affected policy. And meetings with the VP and Sec of State are almost as high as you can go in our government. Burisma spent their money well.

.

That "raid" first occurred more than a year earlier. If that was the catalyst to get Biden to force out thd Prosecutor General, then why didn't Biden do that when the Ukrainian government first seized Zelensky's assets??

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And of course you can prove the policies that resulted form those meetings those meetings weren't what were discussed in the house testimony, right?

.

Well, the testimony says that Shokin wasn't removed because of those meetings you've referenced. Contemporaneous reporting corroborates it. What evidence is there that some policy did change because of them?

Once again, the timeline goes against you, why didn't they demand Shokin be fired months earlier?

.

The timeline is completely circumstantial. The noncircumstantial evidence goes against you.

They were pushing for his dismissal for several months. The loan guarantees were about to be committed so that gave them the leverage to finally get the prosecutor fired.

According to your House Managers, withholding aid is an impeachable offense.

That's a lie.

Then why was he impeached, dumbass?

 

[OKTexas]

And of course you can prove the policies that resulted form those meetings those meetings weren't what were discussed in the house testimony, right?

.

Well, the testimony says that Shokin wasn't removed because of those meetings you've referenced. Contemporaneous reporting corroborates it. What evidence is there that some policy did change because of them?

Once again, the timeline goes against you, why didn't they demand Shokin be fired months earlier?

.

The timeline is completely circumstantial. The noncircumstantial evidence goes against you.


They were pushing for his dismissal for several months. The loan guarantees were about to be committed so that gave them the leverage to finally get the prosecutor fired.

So tell the class exactly when the loan guarantees were authorized relative to the demand.

.

Depends on what you mean by authorized. Here's some timelines that look pretty solid to me.

U.S. To Move Forward With $1 Billion Loan Guarantee For Ukraine

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

The timeline in your two links have conflicts. One says Biden spoke to president Poroshenko May 13 2014, your other link said Poroshenko took office June 7 2014. They also say the loan guarantees were authorized in May 2014, biden didn't demand Shokin's firing till Fall 2015, What changed, other than the owner of Burisma getting his home raided and Burisma reps contacting the State Dept?

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

.

Since when does Congress have to go to court to enforce a subpoena? Court is an option, but it's not their only option.

Separation of powers says they do.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Since when does Congress have to go to court to enforce a subpoena? Court is an option, but it's not their only option.

Yep, the other option is to hold the person in contempt, we've seen how effective that is.

.

 

[colfax_m]

Well, the testimony says that Shokin wasn't removed because of those meetings you've referenced. Contemporaneous reporting corroborates it. What evidence is there that some policy did change because of them?

Once again, the timeline goes against you, why didn't they demand Shokin be fired months earlier?

.

The timeline is completely circumstantial. The noncircumstantial evidence goes against you.


They were pushing for his dismissal for several months. The loan guarantees were about to be committed so that gave them the leverage to finally get the prosecutor fired.

So tell the class exactly when the loan guarantees were authorized relative to the demand.

.

Depends on what you mean by authorized. Here's some timelines that look pretty solid to me.

U.S. To Move Forward With $1 Billion Loan Guarantee For Ukraine

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

The timeline in your two links have conflicts. One says Biden spoke to president Poroshenko May 13 2014, your other link said Poroshenko took office June 7 2014. They also say the loan guarantees were authorized in May 2014, biden didn't demand Shokin's firing till Fall 2015, What changed, other than the owner of Burisma getting his home raided and Burisma reps contacting the State Dept?

.

I don’t know what you’re reading they says Biden spoke to Poroshenko May 13, 2014. One link says they talked on May 13 2016 so I think you’re confused about the year.

There were also multiple rounds of loan guarantees. The third round of guarantees were offered in Nov 2015 which was right in the middle of this scandal.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

.

Since when does Congress have to go to court to enforce a subpoena? Court is an option, but it's not their only option.

Yep, the other option is to hold the person in contempt, we've seen how effective that is.

.

We’ve also seen how effective it is to go to court.

I’m not sure you can hold the president in contempt. It would be an interesting experiment.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Idiot, we had been trying to get Shokin out for six months before he was finally sacked. Others had been trying even longer. Shokin wasn't pursuing Zelensky but Shokin's replacement did. Getting Shokin out had nothing to do Archer, Kerry or Hunter Biden.

Then why wasn't the ultimatum given much earlier, the loan guarantees were authorize more than a year earlier. BTW why would Shokin be investigating Zelensky?

.

 

[OKTexas]

State dept emails and visitor list released under FOIA.

.

Still looking for evidence anyone did anything wrong. Devon Archer meeting with Kerry isn't illegal. Neither is a lawyer from Burisma meeting with the State Dept. The allegation is that Burisma got the Biden's to fire Shokin. There's no evidence that happened. Actually evidence to the contrary.

Really, possibly the most corrupt business in Ukraine had access to some of the highest levels of our government. You don't see that as a problem? Then you have our government officials violating the tenants of the UN charter by interfering in the internal affairs of another country. You don't see that as a problem?

.

There is no tenant in the UN charter that prevents us from creating conditions to our monetary aid.

A lawyer at Burisma might have gotten a meeting with someone you've never heard of before. I'd be more worried if they actually affected policy. Which they didn't.

LMAO, they got the prosecutor in Ukraine fired not too long after he raided the home of the Burisma owner. I'd say they affected policy. And meetings with the VP and Sec of State are almost as high as you can go in our government. Burisma spent their money well.

.

That "raid" first occurred more than a year earlier. If that was the catalyst to get Biden to force out thd Prosecutor General, then why didn't Biden do that when the Ukrainian government first seized Zelensky's assets??

Why don't you figure out which "Z" names you wish to discuss and get back to me. Zelensky wasn't even in the picture at that time, you do know he assumed the office of Ukraine's president in May 2019, right? I'm beginning to think you're too senile to even bother with. LMAO

.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/-----/ BREAKING: White House told Bolton to remove classified material from manuscript before publication
The White House has told former national security adviser John Bolton not to publish his upcoming tell-all about his time in the Trump administration until classified material is removed from the manuscript.

“Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” Ellen J. Knight, a National Security Council aide, wrote in a letter to Bolton attorney Charles J. Cooper last week, which was obtained by Fox News.

 

[OKTexas]

Once again, the timeline goes against you, why didn't they demand Shokin be fired months earlier?

.

The timeline is completely circumstantial. The noncircumstantial evidence goes against you.


They were pushing for his dismissal for several months. The loan guarantees were about to be committed so that gave them the leverage to finally get the prosecutor fired.

So tell the class exactly when the loan guarantees were authorized relative to the demand.

.

Depends on what you mean by authorized. Here's some timelines that look pretty solid to me.

U.S. To Move Forward With $1 Billion Loan Guarantee For Ukraine

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

The timeline in your two links have conflicts. One says Biden spoke to president Poroshenko May 13 2014, your other link said Poroshenko took office June 7 2014. They also say the loan guarantees were authorized in May 2014, biden didn't demand Shokin's firing till Fall 2015, What changed, other than the owner of Burisma getting his home raided and Burisma reps contacting the State Dept?

.

I don’t know what you’re reading they says Biden spoke to Poroshenko May 13, 2014. One link says they talked on May 13 2016 so I think you’re confused about the year.

There were also multiple rounds of loan guarantees. The third round of guarantees were offered in Nov 2015 which was right in the middle of this scandal.

You're right, I'm trying to listen to the proceedings in senate and read the links. Why did you give a link to a loan guarantee in 2016 when the topics occurred in 2015?

.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

.

Idiot, we had been trying to get Shokin out for six months before he was finally sacked. Others had been trying even longer. Shokin wasn't pursuing Zelensky but Shokin's replacement did. Getting Shokin out had nothing to do Archer, Kerry or Hunter Biden.

Then why wasn't the ultimatum given much earlier, the loan guarantees were authorize more than a year earlier. BTW why would Shokin be investigating Zelensky?

.

Because Shokin didn’t take office until Feb 2015. He was only prosecutor general for about a year and a bit. What really pushed the State Dept to go after him was the Diamond Prosecutor scandal and that occurred in the summer-fall of 2015.