Debates
27 Jan 20
"President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton alleges in his forthcoming book that the president explicitly told him "he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens," the New York Times first reported."
https://www.axios.com/john-bolton-book-donald-trump-ukraine-24b80e2b-4460-4550-9c2d-333b9821d5dc.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100
Game changer?
27 Jan 20
The post that was quoted here has been removedI was thinking more about the coming vote as to whether to subpoena witnesses though it may have an effect on the Trump defense team's presentation and the question and answer period after that.
Your pettiness never stops; what did I "distort"?
But just to put you on notice, I'm not going to allow you to change this thread into another one where all you do is throw insults and distract from the issues at hand; if you further attempt to do so, your posts will be ignored.
@earl-of-trumps saidObviously you don't have any problem with a Republican President withholding Congressionally mandated military aid to a foreign nation unless that country agreed to aid his own re-election chances.
I have no problem whatsoever with Trump applying pressure to get an investigation with a criminal.
And if Bien is cleared, then "no harm, no foul". What y'all afraid of?
I somewhat doubt if you would have supported such a position during the Obama administration.
Now that there is information that Bolton will directly refute a main tenet of Trump's defense, I wonder what excuse "moderate" Republicans will come up with if they decide not to vote to subpoena him?
The information will come out eventually; did they really want to acquit Trump and then have Bolton's book blowing away his defense come out during their re-election campaign?
EDIT: From Trump's defense team argument Saturday:
"4) No witness testified that Trump himself said "that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-relieved-republicans-welcome-trump-defense
@earl-of-trumps saidYou accuse Joe Biden of being a criminal? What are the charges?
I have no problem whatsoever with Trump applying pressure to get an investigation with a criminal.
And if Bien is cleared, then "no harm, no foul". What y'all afraid of?
27 Jan 20
@no1marauder saidIt's not supporting his election chances. It's nabbing a criminal.
Obviously you don't have any problem with a Republican President withholding Congressionally mandated military aid to a foreign nation unless that country agreed to aid his own re-election chances.
I somewhat doubt if you would have supported such a position during the Obama administration.
I explained that above. You're just p!ssed because the crim is a dem
@handyandy saidlet them investigate
You accuse Joe Biden of being a criminal? What are the charges?
@earl-of-trumps saidYou want him investigated without probable cause or reasonable suspicion? This isn't Russia.. not yet anyway.
let them investigate
@earl-of-trumps saidIf Biden was suspected of being a "criminal", how come Trump didn't have his servile Attorney General investigate him? From the DOJ:
It's not supporting his election chances. It's nabbing a criminal.
I explained that above. You're just p!ssed because the crim is a dem
"The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said. “The president has not asked the attorney general to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter. The attorney general has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject. Nor has the attorney general discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice-department-trump-never-asked-barr-to-talk-to-ukraine
How come the Republican Congress wasn't interested in investigating him?
How come no US law enforcement agency was investigating him (and still isn't)?
Why don't you stop the BS? Why Trump wanted an announcement of an investigation is crystal clear; I know right wingers are extremely gullible, but not even you are dumb enough to think that it is some wild coincidence that the Donald decided to push foreigners to investigate Biden AFTER he became the Democratic frontrunner to replace him.
@earl-of-trumps saidDo you know withholding Congressionally approved aid is a violation of US law ? Has been since 1974 .
It's not supporting his election chances. It's nabbing a criminal.
I explained that above. You're just p!ssed because the crim is a dem
But I am sure you already knew that and you are okay with a President violating the law as long it is Trump or a Republican .
27 Jan 20
@no1marauder saidGame changer?
"President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton alleges in his forthcoming book that the president explicitly told him "he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens," the New York Times first reported."
https://www.axios.com/john- ...[text shortened]... 5dc.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100
Game changer?
Short Answer: No.
McConnell and the rest of the GOP have already decided, no matter what Trump did, they'll do everything in their power to shut this down and dispose of it as fast as possible. Hand wringing little imp's such as Susan Collins will voice "concern" about a great many things, but in the end she'll march in lockstep with the rest of the GOP, just like she always does. Romney may be a holdout, but don't bet your last dollar on it. This "trial" has been predetermined.
@no1marauder saidThe republicans are faced with a horrible choice.
Now that there is information that Bolton will directly refute a main tenet of Trump's defense, I wonder what excuse "moderate" Republicans will come up with if they decide not to vote to subpoena him?
The information will come out eventually; did they really want to acquit Trump and then have Bolton's book blowing away his defense come out during their re-election cam ...[text shortened]... lse."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-relieved-republicans-welcome-trump-defense
I mean, the evidence that trump is not fit for office is so overwhelming it can’t be ignored. Let alone this impeachment malarkey.
But if they vote to oust him, they’ll be admitting they stuck by a complete retard for 4 years.
If they vote to keep him, they’re basically proving themselves unable to sort fact from fiction or they don’t give a damn, just as long as they can cling to power.
Both are not healthy from a PR or historic point of view.
Bolton can’t add anything nobody already knows. So he won’t swing republicans one way or another. This whole farce about stopping him from testifying is more proof the republicans are panicking about how they’re going down in history.
Rationally, they’d allow him to testify and blur him and his argument beforehand. Even that they’re incapable of.
How’s a republican going to tell his grand kids in 30 years time what he supported?
Man... it’s so hilarious, I need the toilet again.