The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[theHawk]

Bolton “bombshell”?

Bolton’s interview on the phone call in question:

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Bolton “bombshell”?

Bolton’s interview on the phone call in question:

How many bombshells has trump laughed at now?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Bolton Bombshell =====> [poof]

 

[Lakhota]

Rand Paul frustrated after John Roberts rejects his whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said.

Rand Paul frustrated after John Roberts rejects his whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial - KRDO

Thank you Justice Roberts. Ayn Rand Paul is evil.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am so pleased with the Trump Defense Team.

The not only obliterated the Adam Schitt show.....but they also showed why this is such a farce.

Thank you Alan Dershowitz.

 

[Crixus]

Rand Paul frustrated after John Roberts rejects his whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said.

Rand Paul frustrated after John Roberts rejects his whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial - KRDO

Thank you Justice Roberts. Ayn Rand Paul is evil.

But in a few weeks the snitch will be outed.

 

[Crixus]

I changed my mind. I want Bolton to testify.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The Constitution gives the Congress oversight of the president.

Wrong again you senile fool, congress has oversight of executive agencies, the president is the head of the executive branch and equal with the congress constitutionally. You can't oversee your equal.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

And another option, when it involves the president, VP, or civil officer -- is impeachment.

Define "civil officer".

.

 

[OKTexas]

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 the funds were not yet appropriated back then. Also, Poroshenko has said he would get rid of Shokin so there was no need to play hardball. But then 6 months later, funds were appropriated and Poroshenko had still not gotten rid of Shokin.

You didn't answer my question, why?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

.

Sorry, meant Zlochevsky....

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 Zlochevsky's assets??

The only seizure, that I'm aware of, was done by England. And they just froze the funds.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Rand Paul frustrated after John Roberts rejects his whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said.

Rand Paul frustrated after John Roberts rejects his whistleblower question in Senate impeachment trial - KRDO

Thank you Justice Roberts. Ayn Rand Paul is evil.

The presidents team proved the so called WB was NOT LEGALLY A WB. They made the exact same argument I made here more than a month ago. A presidential diplomatic phone call is not an intelligence activity and does not fall within the direct authority or responsibility of the DNI, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. In fact the office of the president is not subject to any WB laws. So naming the treacherous SOB shouldn't be a problem.

.

 

[colfax_m]

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

The accusation is that Biden got Shokin fired to help
Hunter.

If Biden wasn’t the one who came up with the idea to fire Shokin, it destroys the accusation.

What "if"?
Biden claimed he was the one. Case closed.

He wasn’t. Doesn’t matter what he claimed.

 

[colfax_m]

Oh it's still a part of the story. But the concern about Shokin's corruption came from the bottom up. The embassy staff in Ukraine had been getting fed up with Shokin's corruption and brought their concern to Biden and recommended that he be removed. Biden agreed and helped

And you know this how?

No one in the State Dept says that they were pressured by Burisma or Joe Biden to get Shokin fired.

The State Department did not issue an ultimatum to Ukraine officials....Joe Biden did.

Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story

Joe Biden issued the ultimatum at the recommendation of the State Dept.

Which implicates Obama and Hillary in addition to Biden. You want testimony ? How about the Durham report ?

It implicated Obama in what? They were trying to protect Hunter? Sure buddy. More stretching.

There is no Durham report. Not yet.

 

[colfax_m]

He’s trying to steal the election.

That's what Democrats are doing.

How?

All their scams. Kavanaugh, Russia collusion, Ukraine, + their usual election cheating (illegal aliens, vote miscounting, attacking Trump supporters, debate cheating, etc etc

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

Scam. Nobody gets a pass. Candidate or not.

Does the president get a pass? Seems like he’s getting a pass.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm still waiting to hear all these people that Viktor Shokin was a good prosecutor.

He wasn't seen as some evil corrupt vampire until he stepped on toes at Burisma/ the Bidens and the Obama regime.

Are you saying that because it’s true or are you saying that because you want it to be true?

Who are all these people who thought he was a good prosecutor?

 

[colfax_m]

Maybe. But you have to admit, it’s very exculpatory information.

If accurate. We've seen so much put out by the media that hasn't been. So I'm a bit of a skeptic.

.

This was covered at length on local media, not much here. It seemed like it was a big scandal in Ukraine.

The details from the article came from the testimony of George Kent, career foreign service. These are the kinds of details one would expect to be uncovered as part of an actual investigation into Biden. That didn’t happen.

You're right, at this point none of the bidens have been investigated, there are some pretty stern allegations against at least 5 of them for personally profiting off bidens position as VP. I like to see all of them investigated, and from what Graham said, the senate judiciary committee may take it up once this is over with.

.

Oh. We have to investigate allegations because someone alleged them. Okay. Who cares if there’s evidence or not.

Ah. And so begins the Republican tradition of investigating Democratic candidates for president.

Aren't allegations the genesis of all investigations?

.

I thought it takes more than allegations. It takes some evidence to reach a threshold to investigate.

That’s what the Horowitz report stated.

 

[colfax_m]

Maybe. But you have to admit, it’s very exculpatory information.

If accurate. We've seen so much put out by the media that hasn't been. So I'm a bit of a skeptic.

.

This was covered at length on local media, not much here. It seemed like it was a big scandal in Ukraine.

The details from the article came from the testimony of George Kent, career foreign service. These are the kinds of details one would expect to be uncovered as part of an actual investigation into Biden. That didn’t happen.

You're right, at this point none of the bidens have been investigated, there are some pretty stern allegations against at least 5 of them for personally profiting off bidens position as VP. I like to see all of them investigated, and from what Graham said, the senate judiciary committee may take it up once this is over with.

.

Oh. We have to investigate allegations because someone alleged them. Okay. Who cares if there’s evidence or not.

Ah. And so begins the Republican tradition of investigating Democratic candidates for president.

I suggest you read the book before you evaluate its authenticity. Or you could close your eyes and claim you saw nothing warranting investigation.

The interesting part of this book, Profiles in Corruption is that all of the proof was open to anyone who wanted to investigate it. The Democrats just didn't want to go there.

Ive seen enough to know that it’s shoddy yellow journalism.

The author makes the worst stretches and assumptions and calls it “proof”. Enough people here have bought it hook line and sinker without ever knowing what the evidence actually is.

 

[skookerasbil]

That's what Democrats are doing.

How?

All their scams. Kavanaugh, Russia collusion, Ukraine, + their usual election cheating (illegal aliens, vote miscounting, attacking Trump supporters, debate cheating, etc etc

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

Scam. Nobody gets a pass. Candidate or not.

Does the president get a pass? Seems like he’s getting a pass.

At this point, discussing the merits of the prosecutions case a waste of time.

A pass?

The football term this weekend is going to be spiking the football, not passing!

Didnt anybody else see the Presidents tweet this morning?

"GAME OVER"

 

[Faun]

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.

The Constitution gives the Congress oversight of the president.

Wrong again you senile fool, congress has oversight of executive agencies, the president is the head of the executive branch and equal with the congress constitutionally. You can't oversee your equal.

.

Dumbfuck, the ability to impeach is oversight.