It appears Bolton's book undercuts Trump's defense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is literally quoted in the thread you replied to, you not wit. You are am embarrassment to your kind, which is a hard thing to pull off, yet here you are.

[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.

^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is literally quoted in the thread you replied to, you not wit. You are am embarrassment to your kind, which is a hard thing to pull off, yet here you are.

I meant that I didn't say it. Happy now?

[Anonymous]

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

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

Democrats must be feeling very conflicted right now. A small ray of reason is jabbing at their thick skulls, desperately trying to get in. Alas, the effort is in vain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is literally quoted in the thread you replied to, you not wit. You are am embarrassment to your kind, which is a hard thing to pull off, yet here you are.

I meant that I didn't say it. Happy now?

I agree with your observation that you are a "no one", completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

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

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

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT?!

The House requested Bolton testify.

Bolton said he wouldn't testify without a court ruling saying he can comply with a subpoena. That came when the House was done with its hearings.

As such, it's up to the Senate to issue said subpoena.

No one is saying he's a truth-telling, respected man. He has potential relevance to the case, which is why Democrats--and even now GOP Senators (Romney, Collins, even Graham)--are saying he should testify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is literally quoted in the thread you replied to, you not wit. You are am embarrassment to your kind, which is a hard thing to pull off, yet here you are.

I meant that I didn't say it. Happy now?

I agree with your observation that you are a "no one", completely irrelevant.

Ooh, what wit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Democrats must be feeling very conflicted right now. A small ray of reason is jabbing at their thick skulls, desperately trying to get in. Alas, the effort is in vain.

‘Tis true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John Bolton Skewed Intelligence, Say People Who Worked With Him
Former colleagues say the next national security adviser — whose job is to marshal information and present it to the president fairly — resists input that doesn’t fit his biases and retaliates against people he disagrees with.


But many foreign policy experts, including some who worked closely with him, argue that the more significant issue for Bolton’s new role may be his history as a consumer of intelligence that does not conform to his views, and the lengths to which he has sometimes gone to try to suppress analyses that he sees as wrong or misinformed.

An examination of Bolton’s record, based on interviews with some of his former colleagues and the Senate hearings on his nomination in 2005 to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reveal a tendency to aggressively embrace intelligence that supported his positions, while discounting information that undercut those views. The confrontations that arose from that approach have often been ascribed to partisanship or sharp elbows, but even some conservative veterans of the Bush administration accused Bolton of exaggerating, minimizing or cherry-picking intelligence information to bolster his policy positions, and of retaliating to try to silence intelligence professionals with whom he disagreed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.propublica.org/article/john-bolton-national-security-adviser-intelligence/amp

It’s amazing, the people some Democrats will suddenly embrace. The only prerequisite is they disagree with Trump. I daresay Hitler could be reincarnated and as long as he denounced Trump, he’d be welcomed into the fold.

Something I'm sure you cared about when they were stirring up tensions with Iran.

This is one of the tactics a PP alluded to above that the Republicans would take. Rule #1: Discredit the Witness!

[jsteele]

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

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

This is very well known and I assume that you know it and are just playing stupid. But, here is the explanation:

1) Charles Kupperman, and NSC aid to Bolton, was subpoenaed. The White House ordered him not to testify. He then went to court and said that since he was getting conflicting demands from two branches of government, the Courts should decide which he should honor.

2) Bolton, assuming that he might get subpoenaed, asked to join the case.

3) The Congress decided that it didn't want to engage in a long drawn-out court case and told the court that Bolton would not be subpoenaed. Bolton was then dropped from the case.

4) Congress withdrew its subpoena of Kupperman and his case was dropped.

In sum, Congress would have liked both Kupperman and Bolton to testify. The White House obstructed that testimony. Congress decided not to fight this in Court due to time constraints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Democrats must be feeling very conflicted right now. A small ray of reason is jabbing at their thick skulls, desperately trying to get in. Alas, the effort is in vain.

For whatever the democrats must be feeling, I would take their feeling over what anyone in the GOP Senate must be feeling right now. Did the White House blindside Mitch, or did Mitch blindside his caucus?

[Anonymous]

Hey Trumpsters:

Even Lindsay Graham said today that Bolton "may be a relevant witness." Romney and Collins said the same thing.

Still trying to argue this is only an effort by Democrats to call him in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT?!

The House requested Bolton testify.

Bolton said he wouldn't testify without a court ruling saying he can comply with a subpoena. That came when the House was done with its hearings.

As such, it's up to the Senate to issue said subpoena.

No one is saying he's a truth-telling, respected man. He has potential relevance to the case, which is why Democrats--and even now GOP Senators (Romney, Collins, even Graham)--are saying he should testify.

All the democrats had to do was issue a subpoena. They did not.

[Anonymous]

Bolton’s political action committee has already cut $10,000 checks this election cycle to three Republican senators who will have a vote on whether to subpoena him: Cotton, Gardner and Tillis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT?!

The House requested Bolton testify.

Bolton said he wouldn't testify without a court ruling saying he can comply with a subpoena. That came when the House was done with its hearings.

As such, it's up to the Senate to issue said subpoena.

No one is saying he's a truth-telling, respected man. He has potential relevance to the case, which is why Democrats--and even now GOP Senators (Romney, Collins, even Graham)--are saying he should testify.

All the democrats had to do was issue a subpoena. They did not.

Because it would have taken the proceedings past an election where the defendent is being charged with illegal manipulation.