It appears Bolton's book undercuts Trump's defense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has to be called as a witness. The Senate's verdict loses all credibility otherwise.

So why didn't Shiff call him?

What changed? He wasn't needed in the house.

There was no point in Schiff calling him in the House, as Bolton made it clear he wasn't going to agree to testify until a court ruled on whether there was any issue with him testifying. A court did rule that it was fine, after which Bolton said he'd testify if subpoenaed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the probability that Bolton will do interviews with the press today?

He likely is hoping to just be subpoenaed by the Senate. The more interesting thing to watch is how Trump's lawyers approach their defense, given this development. It's hard to say "the President did absolutely nothing wrong" when you have Bolton saying things like this, but maybe they'll just count on enough Americans being flat-out delusional or just not paying attention to the news?

Will this be covered on Fox, OAN or talk radio?

Fox has it on their website, but the article really focuses on Bolton's efforts to promote his book, casting him solely as basically a publicity-hungry hack.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-bolton-trump-ukraine-aid-ny-times-manuscript

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the probability that Bolton will do interviews with the press today?

He likely is hoping to just be subpoenaed by the Senate. The more interesting thing to watch is how Trump's lawyers approach their defense, given this development. It's hard to say "the President did absolutely nothing wrong" when you have Bolton saying things like this, but maybe they'll just count on enough Americans being flat-out delusional or just not paying attention to the news?

Will this be covered on Fox, OAN or talk radio?

Fox has it on their website, but the article really focuses on Bolton's efforts to promote his book, casting him solely as basically a publicity-hungry hack.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-bolton-trump-ukraine-aid-ny-times-manuscript

Funny how there is only one good man in the entire world: Trump. How long can people possibly believe this?

[Anonymous]

When they ( fox etc.) go after Bolton, does that mean the Neo Cons are finally dead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When they ( fox etc.) go after Bolton, does that mean the Neo Cons are finally dead?

No because there is no consistency in the presentation of Republicans' ideas anymore outside of fealty to Trump. They could easily revert once Trump is gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has to be called as a witness. The Senate's verdict loses all credibility otherwise.

So why didn't Shiff call him?

What changed? He wasn't needed in the house.

The House requested that Bolton testify, but he said he would not -- on the instructions of the WH -- without a court-ruled-on subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When they ( fox etc.) go after Bolton, does that mean the Neo Cons are finally dead?

From some clips I saw, Doocy on Fox and Friends said something to the effect of "if that [what Bolton manuscript alleges] is what Trump said then its really bad, but its possible he meant something else..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they ( fox etc.) go after Bolton, does that mean the Neo Cons are finally dead?

From some clips I saw, Doocy on Fox and Friends said something to the effect of "if that [what Bolton manuscript alleges] is what Trump said then its really bad, but its possible he meant something else..."

That’s kinda like Lindsey Graham sort of shrugging and saying, “the president didn’t think what he was doing was wrong” He wasn’t intentionally committing a crime...
last I checked, ignorance wasn’t a defense. But I guess it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they ( fox etc.) go after Bolton, does that mean the Neo Cons are finally dead?

From some clips I saw, Doocy on Fox and Friends said something to the effect of "if that [what Bolton manuscript alleges] is what Trump said then its really bad, but its possible he meant something else..."

That’s kinda like Lindsey Graham sort of shrugging and saying, “the president didn’t think what he was doing was wrong” He wasn’t intentionally committing a crime...
last I checked, ignorance wasn’t a defense. But I guess it is now.

That's awesome, because I don't think I'm doing anything wrong when I fail to scan items at the self-checkout. Good to know the store will have no recourse if they ever catch me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm weary of Bolton's testimony. I mean, if he's really anti-Trump, all he has to do is give an interview to someone in the press.

How can you be weary of testimony that hasn't happened yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm weary of Bolton's testimony. I mean, if he's really anti-Trump, all he has to do is give an interview to someone in the press.

How can you be weary of testimony that hasn't happened yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has to be called as a witness. The Senate's verdict loses all credibility otherwise.

So why didn't Shiff call him?

What changed? He wasn't needed in the house.

The House requested that Bolton testify, but he said he would not -- on the instructions of the WH -- without a court-ruled-on subpoena.

And, Pelosi, et al, did not issue a subpoena to Bolton AND they withdrew their subpoena for Kupperman.
It is not the Senate's role to tidy up the mess the House left. If the Dems thought that Bolton's testimony was so important, they should have subpoenaed him and had the courts enforce it, if necessary.
And, don't say it would have taken "years." It would not have..... the Dems simply had the self-imposed deadline of "finishing it before Christmas" so they rushed it along.

Nancy Pelosi is looking less and less like the strategic genius that the Dems claim she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has to be called as a witness. The Senate's verdict loses all credibility otherwise.

So why didn't Shiff call him?

What changed? He wasn't needed in the house.

The House requested that Bolton testify, but he said he would not -- on the instructions of the WH -- without a court-ruled-on subpoena.

And, Pelosi, et al, did not issue a subpoena to Bolton AND they withdrew their subpoena for Kupperman.
It is not the Senate's role to tidy up the mess the House left. If the Dems thought that Bolton's testimony was so important, they should have subpoenaed him and had the courts enforce it, if necessary.
And, don't say it would have taken "years." It would not have..... the Dems simply had the self-imposed deadline of "finishing it before Christmas" so they rushed it along.

Nancy Pelosi is looking less and less like the strategic genius that the Dems claim she is.

The House had enough evidence to prosecute a grand jury indictment, which is its role. The Senate has an obligation to run a trial. It isn't "cleaning up the House's mess" - that is simply fake news and a really bad take on Constotutional duties.

[Anonymous]

This won't age well. Toensing is on Dmitri Firtash's payroll and is not registered as a foreign agent. She spent months on Fox News spewing lies about Ukraine on behalf of the scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has to be called as a witness. The Senate's verdict loses all credibility otherwise.

So why didn't Shiff call him?

What changed? He wasn't needed in the house.

The House requested that Bolton testify, but he said he would not -- on the instructions of the WH -- without a court-ruled-on subpoena.

And, Pelosi, et al, did not issue a subpoena to Bolton AND they withdrew their subpoena for Kupperman.
It is not the Senate's role to tidy up the mess the House left. If the Dems thought that Bolton's testimony was so important, they should have subpoenaed him and had the courts enforce it, if necessary.
And, don't say it would have taken "years." It would not have..... the Dems simply had the self-imposed deadline of "finishing it before Christmas" so they rushed it along.

Nancy Pelosi is looking less and less like the strategic genius that the Dems claim she is.

The trial takes place in the Senate. The trial is where witnesses are heard. Call the witnesses at the trial.