Bolton pegging Floridaman

[detbuch]

A more clinical, lawyerly, devastating destruction of the House's first article of impeachment, there's this presentation by Mike Purpura of the Presidents legal team at the Senate trial:

[Got Stripers]

Amusing you feel there is an audience on this forum who you potentially can sway with that, it’s like Pete in his zest thinking he will sway anyone on the right to view a Trumps action as impeachable. I’ve made up my mind after seeing all the evidence, listening to the testimonies and seeing even more supporting evidence since, so I don’t even bother to click your link. If there are witnesses it only strengthens the impeachment effort, but I’m also certain it will strengthen your and others defense, reality isn’t always fun, just or right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Amusing you feel there is an audience on this forum who you potentially can sway with that, it’s like Pete in his zest thinking he will sway anyone on the right to view a Trumps action as impeachable. I’ve made up my mind after seeing all the evidence, listening to the testimonies and seeing even more supporting evidence since, so I don’t even bother to click your link. If there are witnesses it only strengthens the impeachment effort, but I’m also certain it will strengthen your and others defense, reality isn’t always fun, just or right.

I have no illusions that you or Pete or wdmso or Spence will be swayed by anything I say or any video or article I post. I don't post anything for you, even if I respond to any post by you. I do it to give others who just tune in and rarely, if ever, join the conversation in order to give them a perspective other than yours.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I have no illusions that you or Pete or wdmso or Spence will be swayed by anything I say or any video or article I post. I don't post anything for you, even if I respond to any post by you. I do it to give others who just tune in and rarely, if ever, join the conversation in order to give them a perspective other than yours.

The trial has started 3 days into the Trial the murder weapon has been found and ballistics match the weapon ...

Republicans think that because it wasnt found by the (House) prior to the Senate its not relevant

But somehow hunter Biden is

Again I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him... But I guess the American people and the historical record should be denied this new information from a 1st hand witness,,

And republicans beating the Drum of let the voters decide and overturning an election BS , Yet they dont want to present anything that may damage the POTUS how upstanding putting Trump before the Voters ..

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

btu:

Again I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him...

Please explain this gold.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Please explain this gold.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've been saying this from day one. doesn't mean I think he had a perfect call and did nothing wrong ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And republicans beating the Drum of let the voters decide and overturning an election BS , Yet they dont want to present anything that may damage the POTUS how upstanding putting Trump before the Voters ..

I'd like to see Bolton testify, no reason not to. The more facts we have, the better.

WDMSO, would you be OK with allowing Bolton to testify, if in return, we asked the Bidens to testify?

You're acting as if only Republicans want to hide the facts. The truth is, there are some Republican senators (Romney, Collins) who are open to the idea of letting Bolton testify. I haven't heard one single democrat say that we should also get to the bottom of what the Biden's were doing.

So which side wants the facts, and which side is covering up? It's not as one-sided as you are trying to portray it to be. Not even close.

Your side is interested in presenting all facts which will hurt Trump. They're not interested in much else.

Wayne, isn't it best if we know what Bolton has to say, AND we also know if Hunter used daddy's connections to get a cushy job? If not, just come out and say that you're only interested in facts that fit your agenda.

Hunter is a weirdo and a complete scumbag (what kind of a man is a millionaire, but only pays child support because a judge orders him to?). I'd like to know what he and daddy were doing there. Just as I'd like to know what Bolton has to say.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I've been saying this from day one. doesn't mean I think he had a perfect call and did nothing wrong ..

What he meant (I'm pretty sure), was that what you posted, implies that you are certain they will remove him.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'd like to see Bolton testify, no reason not to. The more facts we have, the better.

WDMSO, would you be OK with allowing Bolton to testify, if in return, we asked the Bidens to testify?

You're acting as if only Republicans want to hide the facts. The truth is, there are some Republican senators (Romney, Collins) who are open to the idea of letting Bolton testify. I haven't heard one single democrat say that we should also get to the bottom of what the Biden's were doing.

So which side wants the facts, and which side is covering up? It's not as one-sided as you are trying to portray it to be. Not even close.

Your side is interested in presenting all facts which will hurt Trump. They're not interested in much else.

Wayne, isn't it best if we know what Bolton has to say, AND we also know if Hunter used daddy's connections to get a cushy job? If not, just come out and say that you're only interested in facts that fit your agenda.

Hunter is a weirdo and a complete scumbag (what kind of a man is a millionaire, but only pays child support because a judge orders him to?). I'd like to know what he and daddy were doing there. Just as I'd like to know what Bolton has to say.

Again you sound all reasonable then off the rails you go with the Bidens crap.. Hell , why not call capt crunch to testify

Ok here is your chance Tell us how Having biden testify Has any relevance to the 2 articles of impeachment currently being argued in the Senate in the president's defense

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again you sound all reasonable then off the rails you go with the Bidens crap.. Hell , why not call capt crunch to testify he as much 1st hand relevance to Trumps action in Ukraine as Biden does..

Supposedly, the Bidens' action in Ukraine was the main reason for the Trump actions that led to impeachment. If that is true, the Bidens would certainly have 1st hand relevance to Trump's action.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again you sound all reasonable then off the rails you go with the Bidens crap.. Hell , why not call capt crunch to testify

Ok here is your chance Tell us how Having biden testify Has any relevance to the 2 articles of impeachment currently being argued in the Senate in the president's defense

having biden testify doesn’t directly support or refute the articles of
impeachment. so let’s have a separate investigation into Biden if you want it disconnected from impeachment.

My point is this...Donald Trump
is running for president, therefore i think it’s vital that the voters have all the information they can get, when deciding if they’re going to vote for him. If Bolton’s testimony sheds new light, we are better off having those facts. I assume
you agree.

Here’s where we part ways. Using the same exact logic I articulated above, were similarly better off knowing what, if anything, Joe Biden did in Ukraine.

I think it’s good to know the truth, regardless of party.

Obviously, you’re only interested in the truth that helps democrats.

Nothing you have ever posted, disputes that last sentence of mine. Try making that wrong. Or at least explain to us all, why seeking truth is only a noble undertaking, when it helps democrats or hurts republicans? Obviously that’s what you believe, so just tell us why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Supposedly, the Bidens' action in Ukraine was the main reason for the Trump actions that led to impeachment. If that is true, the Bidens would certainly have 1st hand relevance to Trump's action.

Supposedly being the key word, that crap cover story has already been blown up by testimony and now Bolton is about to force the senate into exactly what Moscow Mitch wanted so desperately to avoid; first hand witnesses. Kelly coming out in support of Bolton is going to further raise the stakes, might be Mitch is thinking gee how would a Pence presidency be.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A more clinical, lawyerly, devastating destruction of the House's first article of impeachment, there's this presentation by Mike Purpura of the Presidents legal team at the Senate trial:

Shorter Purpura: "The House Managers are trying to deceive the Senate by hiding critical evidence. We will now provide that evidence to you, by relying solely on the the record that the House Managers themselves gave you."

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What he meant (I'm pretty sure), was that what you posted, implies that you are certain they will remove him.

You won't find any post from me suggesting certainty of his removal

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

having biden testify doesn’t directly support or refute the articles of
impeachment. so let’s have a separate investigation into Biden if you want it disconnected from impeachment.

My point is this...Donald Trump
is running for president, therefore i think it’s vital that the voters have all the information they can get, when deciding if they’re going to vote for him. If Bolton’s testimony sheds new light, we are better off having those facts. I assume
you agree.

Here’s where we part ways. Using the same exact logic I articulated above, were similarly better off knowing what, if anything, Joe Biden did in Ukraine.

I think it’s good to know the truth, regardless of party.

Obviously, you’re only interested in the truth that helps democrats.

Nothing you have ever posted, disputes that last sentence of mine. Try making that wrong. Or at least explain to us all, why seeking truth is only a noble undertaking, when it helps democrats or hurts republicans? Obviously that’s what you believe, so just tell us why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Truths hurt Democrats , what truths benefit Trump haven't heard any

I have no issues with a separate Biden investigation, based on evidence or probable cause , not just let's go fishing

You do know Bengiza was to discredit Clinton , prior to the election or did you miss that

Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Shorter Purpura: "The House Managers are trying to deceive the Senate by hiding critical evidence. We will now provide that evidence to you, by relying solely on the the record that the House Managers themselves gave you."

And he precisely, surgically, did so.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Supposedly being the key word, that crap cover story has already been blown up by testimony and now Bolton is about to force the senate into exactly what Moscow Mitch wanted so desperately to avoid; first hand witnesses. Kelly coming out in support of Bolton is going to further raise the stakes, might be Mitch is thinking gee how would a Pence presidency be.

The supposition is that Trump only wanted something that would benefit him in the 2020 election.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You won't find any post from me suggesting certainty of his removal

Not intentionally. But when you typed this:

I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him

that means you think they will remove him. Too many negatives in there...he was teasing you, that's all...

[Pete F.]

The House has filed a new letter in court showing that Trump's impeachment team again contradicted the administration's legal position -- this time in the Mueller grand jury case.

It's the second time in a week: Last week, the House filed a similar letter indicating that Trump's impeachment team contradicted the president's position in the MCGAHN case.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What Truths hurt Democrats , what truths benefit Trump haven't heard any

That says it better than I ever, ever could. You don't operate in the real world, you exist in a hyper positive world, where literally,

liberal=good
conservative=bad

always, no exceptions.

[Pete F.]

Senate Majority Whip John Thune claims the Senate shouldn’t hear from Bolton, arguing it could create an “endless cycle” when “facts are all out there.”

“I don’t think that anything that he’s going to say changes the fact..I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is.”

Fascinating to watch this unfold in real time: The national security adviser says the president did exactly what the impeachment accuses him of doing. And Republican leaders on Capitol Hill say we don’t even want to hear it.

[Pete F.]

1) Floridaman's defense is that no one who has testified heard him link military aid to investigations

2) Floridaman won't allow testimony from the very people who discussed this matter directly with him

3) Thus, not hearing from them is a coverup by definition.

[Pete F.]

Drip...drip.....drip

President Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly says he believes John Bolton and believes witnesses should be heard from in the impeachment proceedings.

[wdmso]

His defense is going with Trump is a victim from the special counsel to the steel document and how wrong to remove him in an election year as if it has any relevance. Put yourself in his shoes.. they have yet once addressed what he actually did or acuused to do ,,, there calling it policy differences and going with Stranger danger .. and now Trump asking for a favor against the Bidens was a free speech moment ,, and because the investigation never happened and aid was provided , and the victims Ukraine had no issues or to afraid to say so its ok

And all the witness just didn't like Trumps policy

Dershowitz says charges against Trump aren’t impeachable. But most legal scholars disagree, including a law professor called by Republicans in the House investigation to argue against impeaching Trump.

Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, wrote in a June 2018 memo before he was nominated for the Cabinet post that Congress could impeach presidents who abused their power.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Drip...drip.....drip

President Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly says he believes John Bolton and believes witnesses should be heard from in the impeachment proceedings.

he goes beyond that.

Asked about the passages in Bolton’s book — which has yet to be released — that appear to reinforce the impeachment allegations, Kelly said Monday evening that “John’s an honest guy. He’s a man of integrity and great character, so we’ll see what happens"

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not intentionally. But when you typed this:

I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him

that means you think they will remove him. Too many negatives in there...he was teasing you, that's all...

Typical Trumplican, mocking somebody with a disability (grammar?)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Typical Trumplican, mocking somebody with a disability (grammar?)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He also claimed that the Pentagon made a $35 trillion adjustment to their annual budget, so I'm not sure that what he lacks in grammar, he makes up for in arithmetic. But it helps to be weak at math to be a liberal, otherwise you'd know that socialism can't work in a nation of 300 million, especially when sharing a porous border with a third world nation.

[Pete F.]

Here's some math for Trumplicans, remember to ignore the facts when you listen to Floridaman. Just use his alternate ones.

At Floridaman's campaign launch speech in July 2015, he said that the country would cross the “point of no return” if government debt ever exceeded $24 trillion. Remember this number.

Floridaman said he would eliminate all government debt “over a period of eight years,” and that renegotiated trade deals with China and other nations would be the key to how he would get it done. That's stupid, there’s no reason to expect improved trade relations with China or any other country to lead directly to lower borrowing by the federal government.

Floridaman has greatly increased the government’s borrowing requirements. A tax cut in 2017, another large reduction in revenue as part of the budget agreement last year. He made successive deals on appropriations that substantially increased spending for both defense and non-defense accounts.

These actions have put the federal government in the worst fiscal position it has ever been in during a period of relatively strong economic growth, and no it is not the greatest, blah, blah......

The actual deficits for 2018 and 2019 exceeded CBO’s 2017 forecast by $675 billion, even as growth over those years exceeded what CBO assumed would occur. CBO’s current forecast (which will be updated shortly) shows the cumulative budget deficit over 2018 to 2021 exceeding the forecast from January 2017 by $1.2 trillion.

Floridaman’s record on fiscal and spending issues over the past three years speaks for itself. He and the officials who support him have not implemented a serious plan to trim government spending, reform programs, or make the government more efficient. The government today looks almost exactly like it did three years ago, only it is substantially more expensive. So much for the great businessman.

Here's that number I told you to remember, the government’s gross debt—the measure of cumulative borrowing that candidate Floridaman referenced when he announced his candidacy in 2015—currently exceeds $23 trillion and will be approaching $24 trillion as voters go to the polls later this year.

There's probably a tweet to cure that.

[Jim in CT]

Pete, i immediately concede Trump gets an F on debt.

Now, please tell us why it was OK for obama to put kids in cages, but wrong for trump to do it.

If I said obama was bad for running up the debt but i have Trump a pass, Id be a hypocrite. I’ve said 100 times he’s failing on the debt.

You are the hypocrite, giving Obama a pass for caging kids but bashing Trump for putting kids in the same exact cages that obama used.

It was Nobel Peace Prize- worthy when Obama did it, and a crime against humanity when Trump does it.

No one cared when Obama
did it, and for damn sure no one said “it’s ok at these numbers, but President Obama if you increase the number of
kids you put in cages, then i will oppose you.”

Not one single human being said that. You’re saying it now to justify the naked hypocrisy.

Do you ever get tired of getting bitch slapped around?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, i immediately concede Trump gets an F on debt.

Now, please tell us why it was OK for obama to put kids in cages, but wrong for trump to do it.

If I said obama was bad for running up the debt but i have Trump a pass, Id be a hypocrite. I’ve said 100 times he’s failing on the debt.

You are the hypocrite, giving Obama a pass for caging kids but bashing Trump for putting kids in the same exact cages that obama used.

It was Nobel Peace Prize- worthy when Obama did it, and a crime against humanity when Trump does it.

No one cared when Obama
did it, and for damn sure no one said “it’s ok at these numbers, but President Obama if you increase the number of
kids you put in cages, then i will oppose you.”

Not one single human being said that. You’re saying it now to justify the naked hypocrisy.

Do you ever get tired of getting bitch slapped around?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're in the wrong thread, so tell me did you work hard to be this much of a moron, or are you the product of a combination of enthusiastic inbreeding and a mother who spent her pregnancy huffing paint thinner while servicing her other clients in a truckstop bathroom?