Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You do realize Bolton was never subpoenaed right? He went to the court to ask how to respond to an EP claim vs being possibly subpoenaed and the Dems didn’t want to go there. So saying Trump obstructed Congress by not letting Bolton testify is wrong.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
Have you cited them?
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s pretty common knowledge as well if one has been paying attention to the news and their rulings even as recently, not to mention the countless subpoenas that get challenged day in and day out.
 
Sirach2 said:
Huh? Trump supporters do as you conclude? What an appalling judgment on others’ souls and motives. I hope you watch the news this evening. He met today with Israel’s leader and announced a wonderful deal that is beyond anything I might have imagined for their country. The applause on every other sentence was thunderous, and in one instance, received a standing ovation with unending applause. What a wonderful foreign policy and negotiation he set in motion. Think again before you publicize your interpretation of his supporters.
Click to expand...
It’s not hard to see. After all, let’s look at the post I was responding to, where @Ridgerunner made a litany of names that Democratic leaders have called Trump supporters. “Bitter clingers” was a reference to Barack Obama talking about the hopelessness some supporters of Republican views hold that the government cannot help them and he never said “bitter clingers”. “Deplorables” was a comment that Hillary Clinton made. “Irredeemables” - where did that come from? And "smelly Walmart shoppers’ is a reference to private FBI agents. So only one of the four has a basis of coming from an actual Democratic leader in the context suggested. Then it was claimed that this reflects my attitude. Totally made up, of course.

Yep, it shows the extent to which some Trump supporters will go to in defending Trump.
Ridgerunner said:
Not at all. What you’re saying is that other “witnesses” said “well, Bolton might know something”. And trump has more reason than that to oppose his testifying. I think the Dems know Bolton has nothing really relevant to say, but has plenty of criticism of Trump in other ways. Trump doesn’t want to stretch this out for the sake of testimony that doesn’t even seem to be there.
Click to expand...
No, specifically they said that Bolton had direct contact with the President and told them what the President’s directives were. Of course it would be best to hear this from Bolton.
Ridgerunner said:
If they didn’t, they wouldn’t say things like that. My use of “your” was generic, as in “Democrat”.
Click to expand...
Sure it was.
Ridgerunner said:
Couldn’t help yourself. Case closed.
Click to expand...
You implied that I felt that way and now make the “I meant Democrat” excuse. It just shows what you will do to defend Trump.
mrad25 said:
You do realize Bolton was never subpoenaed right? He went to the court to ask how to respond to an EP claim vs being possibly subpoenaed and the Dems didn’t want to go there. So saying Trump obstructed Congress by not letting Bolton testify is wrong.
Click to expand...
Then let’s hear what he has to say. The Senate can make this happen very easily.
 
I don’t have the posts handy, they were cited either in this thread or another one some time ago. If you go to the Supreme Court website you can easily read for example the stay they issued recently regarding the President’s challenge to the Congressional subpoena issued by Congress for his taxes. The US district court ruled for Trump to turn them over, SC issued stay saying he didn’t have to yet, will hear arguments. AKA it’s being challenged and the S.C. is allowing it to be challenged. That’s re: EP and congressional subpoenas, but common knowledge subpoenas are challenged everyday in courts. The reason Bolton very wisely went to the courts is because he knows it could be challenged and felt he was in a predicament over being asked to testify, possible subpoena and WH claiming they would go to Article 3 with any subpoena.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
Then let’s hear what he has to say. The Senate can make this happen very easily.
Click to expand...
Actually they couldn’t make it happen easily but they could easily make it happen for Hunter Biden. Difference between the two and how it could work.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
Actually they couldn’t make it happen easily but they could easily make it happen for Hunter Biden. Difference between the two and how it could work.
Click to expand...
So, they can’t make it happen easily for someone who has real evidence, but they can make it happen to attack someone falsely accused of wrongdoing. Got it.
 
drcube said:
So, they can’t make it happen easily for someone who has real evidence, but they can make it happen to attack someone falsely accused of wrongdoing. Got it.
Click to expand...
Accused of wrongdoing? Oh the hypocrisy. I don’t think you do get it. Yes, if John Bolton is called to testify they WH can fight it on EP (Bolton on phone call with Trump). If Hunter Biden is called to testify the Senate can vote for “transactional immunity” regarding his testimony - forces him to testify, but he can’t be prosecuted for anything he says. Senate holds that right. Read about it.
 
Last edited:
How can he make a deal when the Palastinians refuse to speak to him.
A reasonable question?
 
I notice you use " things". Nothing about foreign interference in elections was mentioned by the defense yet. Yet that is article 1.
The three people who actually spoke to Trump.
Mulvany, Bolton and Sondland all say it was a quid pro quo. An extortion.
Rudy said to get dirt on Biden. That’s ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN WHO HAD DIRECT CONTACT.
AMAZINGLY, you will never see a more prooved case once Bolton testifies
 
mrad25 said:
Accused of wrongdoing? Oh the hypocrisy. I don’t think you do get it. Yes, if John Bolton is called to testify they WH can fight it on EP (Bolton on phone call with Trump). If Hunter Biden is called to testify the Senate can vote for “transactional immunity” regarding his testimony - forces him to testify, but he can’t be prosecuted for anything he says. Senate holds that right. Read about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, there certainly is a lot of hypocrisy. Biden has been accused of no crime and is really a victim of Trump’s criminal behavior. Exactly why should he testify if not to turn this into a circus (more so than already, I mean)?
 
I cannot think of why Biden should be called and so far nobody has explained. I guess Hillary is next.
 
That’s the beauty of the deal. He has opened the door for the Palestinians to have their own map and designated part of the country. All in the name of peace and the two nationals getting along. He will provide aid for both of them to become firmly established. Ingenious!
 
Maximus1 said:
I notice you use " things". Nothing about foreign interference in elections was mentioned by the defense yet. Yet that is article 1.
The three people who actually spoke to Trump.
Mulvany, Bolton and Sondland all say it was a quid pro quo. An extortion.
Rudy said to get dirt on Biden. That’s ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN WHO HAD DIRECT CONTACT.
AMAZINGLY, you will never see a more prooved case once Bolton testifies
Click to expand...
I say “things”. Sorry this makes no sense. When did Trump claim anything about foreign interference. He was specific. The three people who spoke to Trump? I think you mean some who were on the phone call with him? They all don’t say quid pro quo. You are speculating. But again who cares if they do say it, quid pro quo is not illegal, it’s also questionable with Trump where it’s obvious is with Biden who is on tape saying he withheld billions in loan guarantees until he got the prosecutor fired. There’s no debate of quid pro quo with that. Quid pro quo happens all the time, every president would be guilty of it. Do you know what quid pro quo even is? Obama and the Iran deal - quid pro quo. Venezuela sanctions - us telling them when they remove their President we will lift sanctions - quid pro quo. Russian gas line sanctions - quid pro quo. It’s not illegal.

Bolton won’t testify, it will be challenged and EP will be awarded. Hunter Biden will be forced to testify under “transactional immunity”. I don’t think the House Dems want to go down this road in reality. It’s just a good talking point but they aren’t stupid, they know exactly how this is going to play out legally speaking.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
I cannot think of why Biden should be called and so far nobody has explained. I guess Hillary is next.
Click to expand...
It’s been explained numerous times! He his central to the House Dems case, look at how many times and hours he House Dems mentioned him and Burisma during their arguments and tried to attempt to say there was no basis for investigating either. The WH defense blew that nonsense out the window.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top