Trump/Ukraine V25 Trump Impeachment Trial---Bolton Becomes 100% Truthful Leftist Hero Overnight

Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL, okay, so when Barr denies any such claims of Bolton raising these "concerns"(LOL), then what?

Also, LOL @ "No coordination". No Sir. The timing of all this is just a big coincidence.

The Senate should put Barr under oath with Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney

Let's find out if Bolton has a paper trail of emails and/or memos
 
The Senate should put Barr under oath with Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney

Let's find out if Bolton has a paper trail of emails and/or memos

Why not put Trumps entire staff on the stand and do Mueller 2.0 because liberals are still butt hurt Trump won 2016?

You guys do remember when Schiff said he had direct indisputable evidence of Russian collusion right?
 
The Senate should put Barr under oath with Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney

Let's find out if Bolton has a paper trail of emails and/or memos

The House should've put anyone they wanted under oath, before sending it to trial. Why are they not confident in their case all of a sudden?

The fact that Bolton's team is talking about relaying "concerns"(vague, not absolute), should tell you all you need to know about the evidence he has. At best, you'll get a repeat of Sondland's testimony, if not an outright pleading of the 5th.

At the end of the day, aid was released unconditionally. Speculation as to why, is irrelevant. Zelenski's own opinion also sinks the case. This whole thing is a joke, and is clearly a cobbled together "Plan B" after the Russia nonsense fell apart.

The accused AND the alleged victim are saying that there was nothing to this. Case closed.
 
Why not put Trumps entire staff on the stand and do Mueller 2.0 because liberals are still butt hurt Trump won 2016?

Or just Bolton and the people he implicated and the head of the office the Government Accountability Office said broke the law.

Seems pretty straightforward
 
The House should've put anyone they wanted under oath, before sending it to trial. Why are they not confident in their case all of a sudden?

The fact that Bolton's team is talking about relaying "concerns"(vague, not absolute), should tell you all you need to know about the evidence he has. At best, you'll get a repeat of Sondland's testimony, if not an outright pleading of the 5th.

At the end of the day, aid was released unconditionally. Speculation as to why, is irrelevant. Zelenski's own opinion also sinks the case. This whole thing is a joke, and is clearly a cobbled together "Plan B" after the Russia nonsense fell apart.

Yes so ignore the guy appointed by Trump and confirmed by the GOP Senate because he refused to testify in front of the House.

Makes sense
 
Yes so ignore the guy appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate because he refused to testify in front of the House.

Makes sense

Why did he refuse to testify in the first place, but has now all of a sudden had a change of heart just in time for his book to hit shelves?

If you want to put your faith in John Bolton though, by all means, have at it.
 
Why did he refuse to testify in the first place, but has now all of a sudden had a change of heart just in time for his book to hit shelves?

If you want to put your faith in John Bolton though, by all means, have at it.

That's a fair question for the Senate to ask him when they call him as a witness
 
Why did he refuse to testify in the first place, but has now all of a sudden had a change of heart just in time for his book to hit shelves?

If you want to put your faith in John Bolton though, by all means, have at it.
It was Donald Trump who put his faith in John Bolton by appointing him in the first place not the Democrats.
 
That's a fair question for the Senate to ask him when they call him as a witness

Or they can just end this circus, because aid was released unconditionally, and the alleged victim says that nothing was inappropriate. That's the long and short of it.

Not that you care though. If Bolton falls through, it will just be some other thing you need to hear about to really, REALLY prove the case.
 
Or they can just end this circus, because aid was released unconditionally, and the alleged victim says that nothing was inappropriate. That's the long and short of it.

Not that you care though. If Bolton falls through, it will just be some other thing you need to hear about to really, REALLY prove the case.

Aid only got released because of the whistleblower
 
Or they can just end this circus, because aid was released unconditionally, and the alleged victim says that nothing was inappropriate. That's the long and short of it.

Not that you care though. If Bolton falls through, it will just be some other thing you need to hear about to really, REALLY prove the case.
2487f76b33262e59e6e61b14f95cc055.gif
 
Aid only got released because of the whistleblower

Speculation. Irrelevant.

Aid was released unconditionally, and Zelenski has no issue with how Trump handled anything in regards to it. Case closed.

This is like a rape case where the victim is saying nothing happened and the sex was consensual, but the prosecutor disagrees with her and belittles her as having "victim mentality", because they're so desperate to get a win.
 
It was Donald Trump who put his faith in John Bolton by appointing him in the first place not the Democrats.

It was a questionable move then, and it's a questionable move now.

Has nothing to do with current events though.
 
It was a questionable move then, and it's a questionable move now.

Has nothing to do with current events though.

Nothing to do with current events? You cant actually be serious.
 
Anyone got a timeline for this?

Do we know this for certain?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...ump-whistle-blower-complaint-ukraine.amp.html

WASHINGTON — President Trump had already been briefed on a whistle-blower’s complaint about his dealings with Ukraine when he unfroze military aid for the country in September, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Lawyers from the White House counsel’s office told Mr. Trump in late August about the complaint, explaining that they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to Congress, the people said.

The revelation could shed light on Mr. Trump’s thinking at two critical points under scrutiny by impeachment investigators: his decision in early September to release $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine and his denial to a key ambassador around the same time that there was a “quid pro quo” with Kyiv. Mr. Trump used the phrase before it had entered the public lexicon in the Ukraine affair.

Mr. Trump faced bipartisan pressure from Congress when he released the aid. But the new timing detail shows that he was also aware at the time that the whistle-blower had accused him of wrongdoing in withholding the aid and in his broader campaign to pressure Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to conduct investigations that could benefit Mr. Trump’s re-election chances.

.....

The whistle-blower complaint, which would typically be submitted to lawmakers who have oversight of the intelligence agencies, first came to light as the subject of an administration tug of war. In late August, the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, concluded that the administration needed to send it to Congress.

But the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, and his deputy John A. Eisenberg disagreed. They decided that the administration could withhold from Congress the whistle-blower’s accusations because they were protected by executive privilege. The lawyers told Mr. Trump they planned to ask the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether they had to disclose the complaint to lawmakers.

A week later, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the administration did not have to hand over the complaint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top