This weeks communist Democrat party media orgasmic fart in the wind. - Politics Discussion

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Let Bolton testify you cowards.

reply

[–] kspkap (13056) 4 years ago

Be careful of what you request. Doing so will most certainly open the door for Biden and son to be called to testify.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kspkap (13056) 4 years ago

Would you please knock off your damnable language? You made a suggestion and I replied. I won’t debate you over the first part of your reply because you have a right to your opinion. I also have a right to my opinion and don’t deserve to have a profanity lobbed at me. It wasn’t necessary. From what I read of your replies those two words are thrown freely when someone disagrees with you. You have anger issues and you are getting very close to flaming...or you may have done so already.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 4 years ago

Nobody is preventing Joe or Hunter from testifying because democrats are fully aware that Joe was in the right to fire Shokin.

The only one willing to say Shokin was wrongfully fired is Rudy Giuliani. And of course maybe Infowars.

If Joe or Hunter testifies, it blows the lid off the whole conspiracy theory.

What republicans absolutely do not want is for Giuliani's whole entire plot to be revealed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Why would Bidens be called in to testify? They're not 'first hand witnesses' to the shady deal which T-rump pulled with Ukraine. Republicans only want 'first hand witnesses' - and Bolton is your guy.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Bolton was there. He saw it. There is no reason Biden or his son should be called as witnesses and as a trial lawyer I would object to any questioning of the Biden's with a "relevance of answer/question" objection. It would be easy. Roberts would shit his pants.

reply

[–] kspkap (13056) 4 years ago

I’m not an attorney, but will do my best to explain my reply. Schiff’s whole case, as he sees it, is based on his assumption Trump withheld aid to Ukraine until Zelensky investigated the Biden’s ties to Barisma. That’s the so-called “shady deal” Trump pulled. Therefore by opening the door to this “deal” Trump has a right to countermand his accusers by having the Bidens testify. I’m having a difficult time in getting from point A to point B. I understand the concept, but putting it into words requires legal speak. If the Bidens were subpoenaed they would be hostile witnesses.
Bear in mind no where in the transcript does Trump refer to the Bidens.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10216) 4 years ago

You're falling for alt-right propaganda. Nobody cares if Biden or Hunter testifies because everyone who hasn't fallen for the conspiracy theory knows that Shokin was rightfully fired. Western agencies said he was corrupt, the Ukraine ambassador said he wasn't doing his job, and the Ukrainian people wanted him gone. On top of that, Shokin's own deputy said he wasn't investigating Burisma. And by all accounts, the Burisma case was dormant before, during, and after Shokin's firing. All of those people told Biden to use his influence to fire Shokin, soviet uniform and all, and so he did.

Additionally, Burisma's corruption had NOTHING to do with Hunter. Burisma was accused of tax fraud years before Hunter joined the board.

The only one willing to go to bat for Viktor Shokin is Rudy Giuliani. Not Trump, not Barr, not Nunes, not even Parnas or Fruman. It's just Rudy. The guy wore a soviet uniform for crying out loud. THAT's the guy trying to eliminate Russian influence in Ukraine? Hell no. Shokin was complete trash and got dumped just like he deserved.

Come on man, you're better than this. Don't fall for their conspiracy theories.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16456) 4 years ago

If we're going to do a Bolton for Hunter Biden which are not comparable, then dems should take in Ivanka, Jared and whoever else that is working in the nepotism whitehouse that has no experience in those positions. Remember, Don Jr. even said Hunter is just a good businessman that somehow made so much money.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Exactly. And while where at it. let's pull in Elaine Chao - let's see her credentials and experience for the job she holds, solely because she was a mail-order-bride.

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 4 years ago

Bolton helped start the 20 year war that we are in today. His lies are many. You can't believe shit that comes out of his mouth.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Get him under oath.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11093) 4 years ago

Still waiting for you to source your evidence krl97a copy and pasted.

It’s amazing you find time to talk out your ass with your head up it 24/7.

Stick to blowing doggie and the other Democrat lemmings like yourself. They’ll be more than happy to go along with your ignorance.

Post often sweetie.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I busted krl97a and he knows it. No need to rehash old triumphs.

To the subject of the post, do you object to Bolton testifying?

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11093) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

You didn't answer my question. Do you support making Bolton testify under oath?

Edit-Holy shit you did a "bu bu but Obama"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11093) 4 years ago

con·text
/ˈkäntekst/

the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

google.com

ne·o·phyte
/ˈnēəˌfīt/

a person who is new to a subject, skill, or belief.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Do you support making Bolton testify? If not, why?

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Transcript? A redacted transcript handed over from the WH? That's a credible source? Fucking hell you are stupid.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11093) 4 years ago

Poor lemming. Gets annihilated like an Adam Schiff argument and resorts back to obsessive hate.

It’s ok sweetie we all know who you are. ;)

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Your use of the term "sweetie" is revealing. You feel yourself superior. What a concept!

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11093) 4 years ago

Stand up for buckwipe! Maybe doggiedumper will hold your hand cutie.

#TiredOfBuckwipeGettingOwned

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Now its "cutie". MWAH!

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11093) 4 years ago

Must be why the communist run Democrat party media got their panties in a wad and demanded it be released.

Oops. Buckwipe owned again.lmao!!!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-demand-for-ukraine-call-transcript-precedent-trump

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Let all of the evidence and witness testimony be presented at the impeachment trial. Problem solved! Let the chips fall as they will.

I'll take that bet.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Thought you had me blocked, Storm ?

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7468) 4 years ago

Bolton, Mulvaney, Duffy, Pompeo, Giuliani and Trump should all take the stand and end this "hoax".

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

That the book literally went on sale on Amazon the same day deepens the farcical nature of this latest fake "bombshell".

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Which is why Bolton needs to testify under oath. Watching you guys squirm is priceless!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Such noble motivations you have. And no, the Democrats should have built a case before rushing to vote for impeachment. The baseless fishing expedition shouldn't be continued in the Senate.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

THIS is a typical post from you when you don't "copy and paste".

What you state is very subjective. You sound like a lawyer.

Edit- I went on a "bassless" fishing expedition once. I'll let myself out...……...

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Your "copy and paste" lie is particularly weird since it's so easily refutable. What's unclear is whether you're clinging to it out of some type of self deprecating performance art or if you're even stupider than you've already shown yourself to be.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Another attempt to take people's eye off the ball. "Look over there!".

Do you support Bolton testifying?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Since I already answered that a couple of posts above, evidence is pointing to the "even stupider" scenario. Nothing Bolton could conceivably say would alter the established hard facts annihilating the Democrats' narrative anyway, or render the absurd Democrat allegations impeachable offenses even if they magically did.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

So you already have a preconceived notion of a "yet to testify" witness's testimony?

You really fucking suck at this.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Go ahead - take another victory lap around krl's tired, worn-out, feeble mind.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

He is a worthy adversary. Never underestimate your enemy.

You and I are decent people. Him? Paid in full.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

No, I reasoned that nothing that Bolton could have been a "witness" to would refute the facts that Trump didn't even tell Ukraine the aid was paused, let alone tie it to a demand to launch an investigation, none of the other Democrat witnesses claim to have heard Trump say he wanted a quid pro quo, with one who talked directly to him testifying that Trump said the opposite, and the aid flowed without any investigation being announced.

Then there's the argument forcefully made by Professor Dershowitz's dazzling presentation tonight, that even if one assumes the worst interpretation of the NY Times' insinuations about Bolton's claims are true, it still isn't impeachable because "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are unconstitutionally vague articles to impeach a President with. They and similar language have been applied to virtually every President from George Washington to Barack Obama. They aren't crimes, they're campaign rhetoric, and those charges should remain in the realm of democratic elections where the people decide who serves them as president.

You really fucking suck at this.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

You have no idea what Bolton could say as a witness yet you already have made your mind up that he couldn't say anything of merit.

You suck the sweat off a dead man's balls.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

You have no idea what Britney Spears could say as a witness yet you aren't clamoring that she testify. I just explained why the sleazy NY Times "mid-trial surprise!" tactic is substantively irrelevant, aside from being unethical.

Keep your fantasies about sucking old men's balls to yourself, please.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Gotdam you are desperate!!!!!!!!!! Britney Spears?????? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....Squirm you little toad!!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Do toads squirm? Even your metaphors suck. Keep squirming, worm.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Britney Spears.....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7468) 4 years ago

It would be over by now junior if The White House didn’t stonewall the subpoenas for the house!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

They should have taken them to court like Congress took Clinton when he kept asserting Executive Privilege, and developed an actual case before voting to impeach. Or not voted to impeach if it turned out there is no case to be made (which there isn't). Democrats have wasted an enormous amount of the nation's time, money, and energy, while weakening the republic's constitutional framework.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The majority of Americans disagree with you - because they're smart.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

If that's true then why are you so afraid of letting the people decide the presidency in the election just a few months from now, and trying so desperately to get Trump removed from the ballot?

Isn't it because you're a craven halfwit who doesn't believe your own drivel?

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Not afraid at all. I do want Americans to decide the presidency in the election in November (a little over 9 months from now). Where have I said I don't want an election to be held ?

Seems like you're too busy cutting-pasting from your conspiracy sites, you cut and pasted the wrong conspiracy here.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

A successful impeachment effort would remove Trump from the ballot as he'd be disqualified from holding further office. Try reading the reading the Constitution some time, idiot, or at least the absurd Democrat impeachment articles you champion here daily (evidently blindly) that explicitly tacked on, "..disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."

Democrats are trying to undo two elections at once.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

A successful impeachment would remove T-rump from the ballot, but it doesn't mean an election in November won't be held. There will still be two (or more) candidates for Americans to choose from. One won't be a criminal, who doesn't deserve the presidency, since he would be removed from office.

It's as simple as that.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

But you'd be robbing Americans of the option of voting for the incumbent president. It's as simple as that.

And of course Trump isn't even charged with a crime in the stupid impeachment articles. He's certainly not a "criminal", you lunatic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

T-rump has been accused of two crimes: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Why should a President who has abused his power and obstructed Congress be considered a candidate - incumbent or not - is beyond me. I would hope the Republicans can offer America a much better candidate than a criminal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/impeachment-defense-trump.html

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Neither of those are crimes. They're campaign rhetoric, as Professor Dershowitz rightly pointed out, and something virtually every president from George Washington to Obama was accused of, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in Trump's case). At least "abuse of power" is. "Abuse of congress" is incoherent nonsense Democrats with zero Constitutional understanding cooked up. It's a kingly power grab by Pelosi, the equivalent of Trump having Schiff arrested for "Obstruction of the Chief Executive".

"Abuse of power" is like impeaching someone for "dishonesty" or "being mean". Such claims belong in the political realm where the people have the right to decide.

Instead you want to disqualify opponents from the ballot like the Iranian mullahs do, rendering "democracy" a joke.

And look at you. You're such an irrational partisan you can't even say "Trump" in an exchange like this. You discredit yourself with childish name calling.

reply

[–] robocat893 (13581) 4 years ago

is And look at you. You're such an irrational partisan you can't even say "Trump" in an exchange like this. You discredit yourself with childish name calling.

So is Trump discredited when he use childish name calling? Trump supporters really do live in a different reality than other Americans.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

No, you missed the point. Trump calls people by their real names all the time. Doggiedaddy apparently can't bring himself to say "Trump". Even in an otherwise serious discussion it's "T-rump" (which is one of the stupidest insults of all time anyway, making his marriage to it even stranger).

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

If a Democrat did what he did, republicans would be calling them crimes - because they are. They are considered crimes.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

No, because they factually aren't crimes. That's why Democrats have been arguing that crimes aren't necessary for removing a president. You don't even seem to understand the basics of what's happening.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Democrats are arguing that crimes aren't necessary for removing a president, because that is what Dershy and the republicans argued during the impeachment of Clinton, you twit. Republicans are desperately trying to say 'no crimes were committed' (a lie) and Dems are responding with Dershy's argument from 1999.

You don't even seem to understand the basics of what's happening.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

I said that myself about 1998 before here, moron. I was correcting your false claim about what Democrats are arguing now.

Of course Democrats are the bigger flip floppers since Clinton was accused of crimes (and guilty as hell). Dershowitz, who is a Clinton-supporting Democrat, btw, and who was even defending Clinton in 1998, explained that he only conceded the "crime isn't necessary" argument back then because it wasn't pertinent to that case and he hadn't researched it in depth yet. Doing so in recent years caused him to change his mind, as shown by his academic publications even before he joined Trump's team.

The video of Democrats like Nadler and Schumer themselves arguing vehemently against any "one party" impeachments is priceless.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

What was the crimes Clinton committed ?

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.

https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hres611/BILLS-105hres611enr.pdf

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

So obstruction of justice is a crime for Clinton, but not for T-rump?

https://www.lawfareblog.com/revisiting-criminal-obstruction-justice-impeachment-inquiry

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Trump didn't obstruct justice and wasn't charged with it. "Obstruction of Congress" isn't the same thing. It isn't anything.

reply

[–] kspkap (13056) 4 years ago

“Impeachment Law Professor Explains Why the Obstruction of Congress Article Is 'Particularly Weak'”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/01/27/law-professor-explains-why-the-obstruction-of-congress-article-is-particularly-weak-n2560126

reply

[–] kspkap (13056) 4 years ago

Anti-Trumpers need to read this list throughly.

Perjury & suborning perjury were the straws that broke the camel’s back. The obstruction of justice charge, out of the three, may be the one charged against Trump. Trump has not committed perjury (lying under oath) which is a crime. When committing perjury obstruction of justice is a given. With that said, Lindsey Graham who is maligned by anti-Trumpers, voted AGAINST removal of Clinton from office!

Edit: krl is correct! Trump is charged with Obstruction of CONGRESS...not Justice.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

And even the CNN pundit in the video you linked above admitted that "Obstruction of Congress" is particularly weak and even "dangerous" as a basis for impeachment.

One could argue that Trump, with at least as much legitimacy, could have Schiff, Pelosi, and others arrested for "Obstruction of the Executive" given their antics for the past three years. It's an unconstitutional power grab that has no coherent meaning.

reply

[–] NormaAndNorman (3900) 4 years ago

That would be some sweet justice. Just what those evil ones deserve.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7468) 4 years ago

I have to agree with you there

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 4 years ago

Good. If that's not a first it may be close to it, lol.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Meanwhile for a good laugh click on some of doggielemmings posts.

Says the moron who said a few months ago "I have him blocked".

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Another lie by our Russian bot.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

The hate represents the stature you have. Those trolls have targeted you. That's another stripe.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

He has insisted he has me blocked since day one, yet he seems to be following me since day one. How transparent is he ?

reply

[–] Galilguy (2332) 4 years ago

I find it funny as hell how liberals are evolving. It seems that nobody can keep up with the amount of suppression of the right & ass kissing of the left that is required of them. If they ban articles supporting the right, it's not enough for them. If they come out with articles supporting the Left, they aren't strong enough. Sooner or later if you're not walking around with a knife pointed at your chest & ready to kill yourself for "the cause" you're going to be attacked. I guess that you should expect that when you follow bat shit crazy people..

reply