The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

[Mac-7]

Again, trump does not have to prove his innocence to a bullshit charge

Nobody said he had to. But an innocent person would readily do this, at trial

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this. Even you cultists, who are just bad actors.

That's what You're doing . Bad acting. They couldn't come up with something more believable than this ridiculous farce ?

Come up with? We didn't make this shit up you baffoon. Some whistleblower who worked inside the whitehouse told on him after he heard the inappropriate call. Then a dozen people showed up to testify that it's true. Trump did what we say he did.

But now you want to say it's not illegal? Well it's impeachable dipshit.

The only reason Trump is safe is because the Republicans senators are afraid if they do the right thing they'll lose their next elections. We're hoping that happens because they are defending this criminal.

No witnesses? They don't want to call any witnesses? What a sham.

You idiot. I'm not saying there was no phone call. Trump himself released the transcript immediately, when Democrats started this laughingstock scam. We all saw it.

The point is there's no wrongdoing. Trump enquired about Ukrainian corruption, clearly with good reason, and acted appropriately, as is required of a POTUS. Good job, Mr President.

As for his phone call being impeachable, kids in the 5th grade would day that doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response, except for this -

It wasn't a transcript, it was a summary which is different. A transcript is an official record of exactly what was said, word for word. A summary is a briefing which does not contain a word for word account. In other words, there is missing information that could change the meaning of the conversation.

The summary is an official record also

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At best all she can prove is that they may have had a sexual encounter

but that does not prove rape

Right, that's what criminal investigations and trials are for.

 

[Mac-7]

Again, trump does not have to prove his innocence to a bullshit charge

Nobody said he had to. But an innocent person would readily do this, at trial

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this. Even you cultists, who are just bad actors.

Your response:

“its true trump does not have to prove his innocence”

“but till he does he is presumed guilty”

Excuse you. I didn't say that, nor would I say that.

Of course that's the meaning of your words

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, trump does not have to prove his innocence to a bullshit charge

Nobody said he had to. But an innocent person would readily do this, at trial

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this. Even you cultists, who are just bad actors.

Your response:

“its true trump does not have to prove his innocence”

“but till he does he is presumed guilty”

Excuse you. I didn't say that, nor would I say that.

Of course that's the meaning of your words

No it isn't, nor could you produce any quotes from me that imply that at all. Which is why you had to make something up, of course. You had to invent some low hanging fruit for yourself.

 

[Mac-7]

At best all she can prove is that they may have had a sexual encounter

but that does not prove rape

Right, that's what criminal investigations and trials are for.

Based on nothing but a 30-40 year old accusation?

that's a lib kangeroo court in action

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Based on nothing but a 30-40 year old accusation?

25, actually. And yes, that's what investigations are for. That is literally what they are.

I don't think you know what the term "kangaroo court" means.

 

[Mac-7]

Again, trump does not have to prove his innocence to a bullshit charge

Nobody said he had to. But an innocent person would readily do this, at trial

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this. Even you cultists, who are just bad actors.

Your response:

“its true trump does not have to prove his innocence”

“but till he does he is presumed guilty”

Excuse you. I didn't say that, nor would I say that.

Of course that's the meaning of your words

No it isn't, nor could you produce any quotes from me that imply that at all. Which is why you had to make something up, of course. You had to invent some low hanging fruit for yourself.

Your own words:


Nobody said he had to. But an innocent person would readily do this, at trial

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this. Even you cultists, who are just bad actors.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this.

Right, we do know this. Which aligns perfectly with his obstruction of evidence and the obstruction of witnesses. Knowing he is guilty is, obviously, not the same as winning a conviction in a trial. In a trial, guilt must be proven, not innocence. Come on man, think hard, you can get this.

 

[Katniss]

Nobody said he had to. But an innocent person would readily do this, at trial

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this. Even you cultists, who are just bad actors.

That's what You're doing . Bad acting. They couldn't come up with something more believable than this ridiculous farce ?

Come up with? We didn't make this shit up you baffoon. Some whistleblower who worked inside the whitehouse told on him after he heard the inappropriate call. Then a dozen people showed up to testify that it's true. Trump did what we say he did.

But now you want to say it's not illegal? Well it's impeachable dipshit.

The only reason Trump is safe is because the Republicans senators are afraid if they do the right thing they'll lose their next elections. We're hoping that happens because they are defending this criminal.

No witnesses? They don't want to call any witnesses? What a sham.

You idiot. I'm not saying there was no phone call. Trump himself released the transcript immediately, when Democrats started this laughingstock scam. We all saw it.

The point is there's no wrongdoing. Trump enquired about Ukrainian corruption, clearly with good reason, and acted appropriately, as is required of a POTUS. Good job, Mr President.

As for his phone call being impeachable, kids in the 5th grade would day that doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response, except for this -

It wasn't a transcript, it was a summary which is different. A transcript is an official record of exactly what was said, word for word. A summary is a briefing which does not contain a word for word account. In other words, there is missing information that could change the meaning of the conversation.

The summary is an official record also

Yes, I agree, the summary is an official record but it's not a transcript and it's not word for word so the public has not been given the transcript which outlines everything discussed during the call. We've been provided a summary, not a transcript. There's a difference. Let's at minimum agree on that fact.

 

[Mac-7]

Based on nothing but a 30-40 year old accusation?

25, actually. And yes, that's what investigations are for. That is literally what they are.

I don't think you know what the term "kangaroo court" means.

Decades later is too late

But Trump is guilty as shit, and everyone knows this.

Right, we do know this. Which aligns perfectly with his obstruction of evidence and the obstruction of witnesses. Knowing he is guilty is, obviously, not the same as winning a conviction in a trial. In a trial, guilt must be proven, not innocence. Come on man, think hard, you can get this.

You say if trump will just prove his innocence you will do what?

vote for him in november?

or start a new witch hunt?

 

[Mac-7]

That's what You're doing . Bad acting. They couldn't come up with something more believable than this ridiculous farce ?

Come up with? We didn't make this shit up you baffoon. Some whistleblower who worked inside the whitehouse told on him after he heard the inappropriate call. Then a dozen people showed up to testify that it's true. Trump did what we say he did.

But now you want to say it's not illegal? Well it's impeachable dipshit.

The only reason Trump is safe is because the Republicans senators are afraid if they do the right thing they'll lose their next elections. We're hoping that happens because they are defending this criminal.

No witnesses? They don't want to call any witnesses? What a sham.

You idiot. I'm not saying there was no phone call. Trump himself released the transcript immediately, when Democrats started this laughingstock scam. We all saw it.

The point is there's no wrongdoing. Trump enquired about Ukrainian corruption, clearly with good reason, and acted appropriately, as is required of a POTUS. Good job, Mr President.

As for his phone call being impeachable, kids in the 5th grade would day that doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response, except for this -

It wasn't a transcript, it was a summary which is different. A transcript is an official record of exactly what was said, word for word. A summary is a briefing which does not contain a word for word account. In other words, there is missing information that could change the meaning of the conversation.

The summary is an official record also

Yes, I agree, the summary is an official record but it's not a transcript and it's not word for word so the public has not been given the transcript which outlines everything discussed during the call. We've been provided a summary, not a transcript. There's a difference. Let's at minimum agree on that fact.

No one present on the call has alleged the summary is not accurate

 

[Lakhota]

GOP ON FOREIGN MEDDLING: A-OK WITH US!

Unbelievable!

 

[Katniss]

Come up with? We didn't make this shit up you baffoon. Some whistleblower who worked inside the whitehouse told on him after he heard the inappropriate call. Then a dozen people showed up to testify that it's true. Trump did what we say he did.

But now you want to say it's not illegal? Well it's impeachable dipshit.

The only reason Trump is safe is because the Republicans senators are afraid if they do the right thing they'll lose their next elections. We're hoping that happens because they are defending this criminal.

No witnesses? They don't want to call any witnesses? What a sham.

You idiot. I'm not saying there was no phone call. Trump himself released the transcript immediately, when Democrats started this laughingstock scam. We all saw it.

The point is there's no wrongdoing. Trump enquired about Ukrainian corruption, clearly with good reason, and acted appropriately, as is required of a POTUS. Good job, Mr President.

As for his phone call being impeachable, kids in the 5th grade would day that doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response, except for this -

It wasn't a transcript, it was a summary which is different. A transcript is an official record of exactly what was said, word for word. A summary is a briefing which does not contain a word for word account. In other words, there is missing information that could change the meaning of the conversation.

The summary is an official record also

Yes, I agree, the summary is an official record but it's not a transcript and it's not word for word so the public has not been given the transcript which outlines everything discussed during the call. We've been provided a summary, not a transcript. There's a difference. Let's at minimum agree on that fact.

No one except schiff has alleged the summary is not accurate

That wasn't my question. I'm pretty sure others have asserted that the summary is not a word for word record of the call. Now, back to my question. Can we agree that the public was provided a summary and not the official transcript?

 

[Mac-7]

You idiot. I'm not saying there was no phone call. Trump himself released the transcript immediately, when Democrats started this laughingstock scam. We all saw it.

The point is there's no wrongdoing. Trump enquired about Ukrainian corruption, clearly with good reason, and acted appropriately, as is required of a POTUS. Good job, Mr President.

As for his phone call being impeachable, kids in the 5th grade would day that doesn't even deserve the dignity of a response, except for this -

It wasn't a transcript, it was a summary which is different. A transcript is an official record of exactly what was said, word for word. A summary is a briefing which does not contain a word for word account. In other words, there is missing information that could change the meaning of the conversation.

The summary is an official record also

Yes, I agree, the summary is an official record but it's not a transcript and it's not word for word so the public has not been given the transcript which outlines everything discussed during the call. We've been provided a summary, not a transcript. There's a difference. Let's at minimum agree on that fact.

No one except schiff has alleged the summary is not accurate

That wasn't my question. I'm pretty sure others have asserted that the summary is not a word for word record of the call. Now, back to my question. Can we agree that the public was provided a summary and not the official transcript?

Its the official record whether its a summary or a word-for-word transcript

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You say if trump will just prove his innocence you will do what?

vote for him in november?

No, hahaha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one present on the call has alleged the summary is not accurate

Another lie. Vindman said that he wanted to correct the transcript and that it left out key details. He was on the call. He said this while testifying before Congress.

See what fox news does to people? You're not just uninformed, you're misinformed.

 

[Unkotare]

Some brainless leftists just can’t seem to understand that there is no such thing as “free college.”

And some of them are too stupid to understand there will never be “free college.”

 

[Rambunctious]

Look up the facts....every president at one time or another including Obama pleaded executive order with witnesses...you can't be this uninformed....it has to do with national security...no one knows what a witness may say...it could be an innocent remark that starts a war....grow up man....take the loss like a grown up and work against Trump if you want but to make shit up and turn common presidential practice illegal is dangerous....

True, witnesses can say anything -- which is exactly the reason the House conducted those interviews behind closed doors.

Witnesses will extend the trial and ultimately increase the dems pain....

If that were true, Republicans would have a yuge line of witnesses to call. Are you ever not stupid?

Its not "the republicans" dummy its Trump's legal team and they want four witnesses so far...Hunter....Joe....Schiff...and the so called treasonous whistle blower....

What a preposterous claim that the whistle blower is a traitor.

The preposterous claim is that the president of the united states must never investigate corruption in nations that we send millions of dollars in aid to....

 

[Katniss]

It wasn't a transcript, it was a summary which is different. A transcript is an official record of exactly what was said, word for word. A summary is a briefing which does not contain a word for word account. In other words, there is missing information that could change the meaning of the conversation.

The summary is an official record also

Yes, I agree, the summary is an official record but it's not a transcript and it's not word for word so the public has not been given the transcript which outlines everything discussed during the call. We've been provided a summary, not a transcript. There's a difference. Let's at minimum agree on that fact.

No one except schiff has alleged the summary is not accurate

That wasn't my question. I'm pretty sure others have asserted that the summary is not a word for word record of the call. Now, back to my question. Can we agree that the public was provided a summary and not the official transcript?

Its the official record whether its a summary or a word-for-word transcript

Have a good evening.

 

[basquebromance]

if only Bolton had the balls of Marvelous Marie Yovanovitch...or Pelosi!