Trump's lawyers are trying to block Bolton's public testimony - Politics Discussion

Of course.

He would be the John Dean of Trumpgate.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

What a shock!!!!

If this was a perfect phone call, why are they so afraid?

reply

Democrats have "overwhelming evidence!" Why would you need more witnesses if evidence is soooo overwhelming?

Can't have it both ways 😉

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

What is Trump so afraid of? We all know the answer. He is afraid of the truth, as he should be.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

Nothing to be afraid of.
A nice taste of their own medicine. They don't deserve anything.

But they really should be careful what they ask for because they just might get it...and some they don't want. 😉

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

The American public deserves the truth to be told in court. You're just playing politics.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

We absolutely deserve the truth. Not the twisted version of it given by the Democrats. They're guilty of playing politics.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

So why not get sworn testimony in court? That would be the best way to get to the truth, right?

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

It's up to them.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I understand that. I'm asking you. To get to the truth don't you want to hear from people that were in the middle of this?

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

It wouldn't bother me.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I would think, if you wanted to get to the truth, you would want witnesses. You seem to be indifferent, which is not the same thing.

I have a hunch, since the turtle is going to do his best to keep witnesses from testifying, that you are just fine with this. You just want to give the appearance of being impartial.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

Thanks for reading into it. 🙄

Actually I say bring in all the witnesses. I'd love to hear from the Biden's, Schiff (under oath), the whistleblower, Zaid the "coup" guy...

The Democrats should really be careful about what they ask for. They just might get it and then some they don't want.

I just don't think this is going to happen but I actually prefer if it did. 🍿

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

This trial isn't about what the Biden's did. Why would they be witnesses other than to smear them? Answer honestly!

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

Quid Pro Quo Joe IS the scandal here! It's completely relevant! The very thing they're going after Trump for is the very thing the Biden's are guilty of.
Why doesn't the left care about this? It's beyond hypocritical.

Ironically Trump is Joe's whistleblower! 😂

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

No it's not. Trump is charged with withholding aid to coerce a foreign gov't to investigate a political rival. Biden isn't charged with anything. In fact he has been cleared.

This is just an attempt by the right to take the public's eye off the ball. It's ridiculously transparent. It amazes me that otherwise smart people are being duped by this.

If Trump wanted Biden to be investigated(again) he should go through the proper intelligence channels, not try to coerce a foreign gov't to investigate an American citizen. That doesn't bother you????? It borders on being treasonous. Let's say Trump was successful and Ukraine investigated the Biden's. Now Trump owes them a favor. Don't you see the pitfalls that may represent?

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

"Trump is charged with withholding aid to coerce a foreign gov't to investigate a political rival."

You mean a Quid Pro Quo? No, he's not charged with that otherwise it would be in the articles of Impeachment but it's not there!
Anyway, if he was guilty, why did he give the aid without us getting the investigation?

"Biden isn't charged with anything. In fact he has been cleared."

When and by whom were they cleared? By the Democrats? By the media? Nonsense!

It's people like you being duped.

The Biden's definitely need to be investigated one way or another.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

The Ukraine prosecutor cleared Biden and his son. Want an investigation? Get U.S. intelligence to perform one. Don't trust the Ukraine to investigate Biden? Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate Biden! You can't scoff at the Bidens being cleared by Ukraine then be fine with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. That's trying to have it both ways, my dear man! Those two arguments when used in unison make no sense.

Trump committed a crime when he froze the aid allocated by congress per the "Impoundment Control Act". This was a crime, and when that is done so to pressure a foreign gov't to investigate a political rival you are abusing your office of Presidency. Pressuring a foreign gov't to interfere in a Presidential election is clearly an abuse of power. Trump was acting on behalf of himself, not America. This was clearly impeachable behavior and the Senate has every right to oust Trump from office. Of course the gutless repubs will never do this, but the facts are there. The case is there.

Edit-Trump only released the aid after he heard the news of a whistleblower. He had no choice. He knew he was caught. He started circling the wagons from that point forward.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

Ted Cruz explains it well.
https://youtu.be/BUyl4eUSpiE

By the way, I'm a woman. 🙂

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I explained myself. Don't let a hack like Cruz explain it for you.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Have you seen Fiona Hill's opening statement during the impeachment? If not you should. Unless you say she is lying Trump was clearly abusing his power(and breaking the law) in trying to coerce a foreign country to investigate a political rival.

Is your stance that she is lying? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

I'll just leave this here...……..
https://youtu.be/L5gmpdtbWB0

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

I watched everyone's testimony.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't she resign her position before the call with Ukraine?
So she was giving her opinion. She witnessed nothing.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

She witnessed nothing? You clearly didn't watch her testimony. You're gonna have to work harder, babe.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

I'm not your "babe." I watched all of it. They have zippo!!

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I was just trying to get a rise out of you in a playful way.

If Trump himself were to confess you guys would say, "they have zippo". The burden of proof keeps changing in your world.

Why do you think Trump brought in a criminal lawyer who is arguing "abuse of power" is not impeachable? It's because they can't argue he did not abuse said power.

"Abuse of power" is most certainly impeachable. Don't you agree?

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

Then I apologize. I just didn't appreciate it and it's hard to tell if someone is being playful or disrespectful, especially if you don't personally know them.

I can only speak for me. The burden of proof hasn't changed once for me so I don't know what you mean in that regard.
If Trump came forth and confessed to a legitimate impeachable offense, then I would absolutely accept that and what needs to be done should be done.

Arguing an abuse of power is what he's being in part accused of. Why wouldn't that be defended?
Again, what are the specifics? The Democrats can't name it so they kept it vague.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Democrats are being vague? Dafuq are you talking about?

On a side note, I very much liked the tone of that last comment. I would like to keep our conversations that civil.

Where was I? Oh yeah. What are you talking about? Vague? How so? Let me chew on one thing that you consider "vague".

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

I'm always for civility and respectfulness. 👍🏻
For now I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

Maybe some of our opinions will change during this or once this is over. Time will tell.

Have a nice day, Buck. 🙂

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

No way! What do you think was "vague" about the case made against Trump? It should be easy for you to answer that. You did make the claim.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

I've explained that several times.

Last time I'll try.

The Democrats couldn't name the crime. Their accusations are vague. They're making it up as they go along. It's labeled as generic, not specific.

They went from Quid Pro Quo to extortion to bribery to abuse of power.

Keeping it vague so they could accuse with whatever will stick. They knew he wasn't guilty of QPQ, extortion or bribery or they most certainly would have put that in their articles of impeachment. But even so, it wasn't going to stop them.

Weak.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

The case is that Trump withheld aid that was allocated and cleared by congress to pressure a foreign nation to investigate a political rival, thus bringing in a foreign nation to interfere with a domestic election. That shit IS NOT vague.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 4 years ago

"They went from Quid Pro Quo to extortion to bribery to abuse of power."

Abuse of power fits. It's the unlawful quid he engaged in. There's no article called unlawful quid.

The president cannot ask a foreign government to publicly announce an investigation into a political opponent.

The pro quo, the extortion, and the coverup, are all secondary to the initial unlawful quid.

The mere fact you are stuck on labels shows how flimsy your defense for your cult leader is. You know you can't say "it's okay for Trump to tell Zelensky to call a public investigation into Biden." So you hide behind the name of the damn article. lmao

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

The rats are scurrying.

reply

[–] dteam6 (5073) 4 years ago

I've been noticing this more and more lately--Trumpers are hiding behind semantics, rumors, technicalities and anything else they can.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Bringing in Dershowitz was the kicker. A criminal lawyer was brought in. They are arguing "abuse of power" isn't an impeachable offense.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7475) 4 years ago

Investigated for what specifically?

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I would like to hear an answer to that question as well.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7475) 4 years ago

You've been culted!

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

Original 🙄

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Republicans long ago set the tone for toxic politics. It's their wheelhouse, and when they complain about it (even when not accurately) it rings hollow.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

There's PLENTY of blame to go around for all sides. 😉

Democrats have moved way past that with having temper tantrums since November 8, 2016 trying their hardest to get rid of a duly elected president because they hate him. They've gotten worse with every Republican president in recent decades.

This is beyond toxic. It's downright dangerous.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

The President is dirty. He is a criminal. He deserves to serve time for this.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7475) 4 years ago

Apparently the trump cultists aren’t convinced.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Trump is infallible to them. That isn't hyperbole.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 4 years ago

I though the house said they have all the evidence they need. Is this just another typical thing for them to waste money?

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7475) 4 years ago

Don't forget Trump stonewalled all White House subpoenaed witnesses from testifying.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

And then Trump, in all his wisdom, said yesterday, "They don't have the documents, we do". What a fucking idiot. His lawyers had a talk with him after that statement.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7475) 4 years ago

Insane!
It’s beyond me why this con man is worshiped

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

He is a straight-up con man. He surrounds himself with people so dirty he knows they won't turn on him because if they do THEY go to jail as well.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7475) 4 years ago

Like the mob!

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Exactly like the mafia.

reply