It appears Bolton's book undercuts Trump's defense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

Why didn’t democrats subpoena Bolton to testify in the House?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

You guys didn't let him "build a case" before calling him a racist sexist war criminal. Why give him the benefit of the doubt now? Are you so maybe as to not recognize your own hypocrisy? I bet you win all of the arguments in your own mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

Why didn’t democrats subpoena Bolton to testify in the House?

Sigh. How many times does this have to be repeated?

They requested that he testify. He said he would not do so without a court ruling saying he could comply with a subpoena, given the White House's order that no one comply with subpoenas.

In the intervening time, he has received such court ruling. After that ruling, he said he would testify if subpoenaed. It is now up to the Senate to issue said subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

Why didn’t democrats subpoena Bolton to testify in the House?

I think they did. Remember? The white house claimed executive privilege or something to prevent them from testifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

You guys didn't let him "build a case" before calling him a racist sexist war criminal. Why give him the benefit of the doubt now? Are you so maybe as to not recognize your own hypocrisy? I bet you win all of the arguments in your own mind.

WTAF is wrong with you.

I can't even argue with you anymore. You're bringing things up that have nothing to do with this case. When I said build a case I mean what the Democratic managers have to do, not what John Bolton has to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

Why didn’t democrats subpoena Bolton to testify in the House?

I think they did. Remember? The white house claimed executive privilege or something to prevent them from testifying.

These people have selective memory and no ability to engage with logic. It's honestly pointless to try to persuade them of anything.

[Anonymous]

House investigators did ask Bolton to testify during the impeachment inquiry last fall, but he declined to testify on instructions from the White House and said he would only testify pursuant to a subpoena if a court weighed in on the issue. The House never subpoenaed Bolton.

You are all complete liars. Democrats didn’t subpoena Bolton. You trade off lies and half truths with each other here and pretend you are all so intelligent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/480040-trump-falsely-claims-house-democrats-never-asked-bolton-to-testify%3famp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:House investigators did ask Bolton to testify during the impeachment inquiry last fall, but he declined to testify on instructions from the White House and said he would only testify pursuant to a subpoena if a court weighed in on the issue. The House never subpoenaed Bolton.

You are all complete liars. Democrats didn’t subpoena Bolton. You trade off lies and half truths with each other here and pretend you are all so intelligent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/480040-trump-falsely-claims-house-democrats-never-asked-bolton-to-testify%3famp

No one has said the Democrats subpoenaed Bolton. Your post literally echoes what all of us have posted in response to questions about this issue.

Reading is fundamental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

Why didn’t democrats subpoena Bolton to testify in the House?

I think they did. Remember? The white house claimed executive privilege or something to prevent them from testifying.

These people have selective memory and no ability to engage with logic. It's honestly pointless to try to persuade them of anything.

Lol, you ignorant fools think that Bolton received a subpoena from the House?

LMAO!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

Why didn’t democrats subpoena Bolton to testify in the House?

I think they did. Remember? The white house claimed executive privilege or something to prevent them from testifying.

These people have selective memory and no ability to engage with logic. It's honestly pointless to try to persuade them of anything.

Lol, you ignorant fools think that Bolton received a subpoena from the House?

LMAO!!!

JFC. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT.

[Anonymous]

Well, I didn't say that, at least.

The House requested he testify. They didn't actually subpoena him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House investigators did ask Bolton to testify during the impeachment inquiry last fall, but he declined to testify on instructions from the White House and said he would only testify pursuant to a subpoena if a court weighed in on the issue. The House never subpoenaed Bolton.

You are all complete liars. Democrats didn’t subpoena Bolton. You trade off lies and half truths with each other here and pretend you are all so intelligent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/480040-trump-falsely-claims-house-democrats-never-asked-bolton-to-testify%3famp

No one has said the Democrats subpoenaed Bolton. Your post literally echoes what all of us have posted in response to questions about this issue.

Reading is fundamental.

Read 01/27/2020 12:26

That is if you can read.

[Anonymous]

And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.