It appears Bolton's book undercuts Trump's defense

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Yes. That and a quarter will get you a telephone call. Happy now?

Dems had every opportunity to call in any so-called witnesses or Trump officials during the House impeachment phase.
They didn't do it because the full House never voted for impeachment, so Trump was free to shred any letters requesting (not subpoenas) to testify.

[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.

They asked him to testify. He wouldn’t do it without a subpoena, Democrats didn’t go that route because it would have taken months.

Not only that, but Justice has argued that this is an issue NOT up to the courts to decide anyway, but that it is left to Congress and the Executive to figure out between themselves. Republicans -- in Congress or otherwise -- can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Yes. That and a quarter will get you a telephone call. Happy now?

Dems had every opportunity to call in any so-called witnesses or Trump officials during the House impeachment phase.
They didn't do it because the full House never voted for impeachment, so Trump was free to shred any letters requesting (not subpoenas) to testify.

DP here, there is zero constitutional basis for needing a "full House vote" for subpoenaing witnesses in an investigation. This is a propaganda talking point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Illegal you say? Name the law that was broken that resulted in the two articles of impeachment.

[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.

DP.. let's say that they did. Do you honestly think whatever he testified would change the hearts and minds of the cult? They excuse all of Trump's lies and corruption. Just look at the spin from Trumpsters from the start of this whole debacle to now. First it was "no, he didn't do that..", then it was, "well, he's POTUS, he can shape our foreign policy...", and finally, "BFD.. every politician does it".

Whether the House should or should not have subpeonaed him is moot now. What will R senate do now? Will they call him to testify? That is the relevant question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Yes. That and a quarter will get you a telephone call. Happy now?

Dems had every opportunity to call in any so-called witnesses or Trump officials during the House impeachment phase.
They didn't do it because the full House never voted for impeachment, so Trump was free to shred any letters requesting (not subpoenas) to testify.

DP here, there is zero constitutional basis for needing a "full House vote" for subpoenaing witnesses in an investigation. This is a propaganda talking point.

There's no need for Bolton, or any Trump official, to testify because the "subpoenas" carries all the legal weight of a Publisher Clearing House prize notification letter.

The House didn't follow its own rules re: impeachment, so Trump is free to tell them to pound sand.

[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?

Bolton was excruciating process oriented. And documented everything. It may not be enough to sway GOP now (hard to see evidence when your head is in the sand) but it will all come out eventually.

Mitch’s plan to ignore and hope it will go down memory hole was pre-Twitter. Everything is forever.

We're seeing evidence of SOME GOP senators shifting on the question of calling witnesses even now.

Romney and Collins have said they most likely will vote for witnesses -- a slight solidification of their position.

Perhaps most notably, Graham said "Bolton may be a relevant witness."

It's also worth pointing out that Bolton's PAC has donated to 10 GOP Senators, so they're likely hesitant to piss him off.

[Anonymous]

So Bolton and his rep are denying this?

Narrator: They are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way, for the people (person?) suggesting the Senate shouldn't subpoena Bolton because the house should've gone through the courts -- are you aware of what the Administration's argument has been in these cases (e.g., Don McGahn's)? DOJ has argued that an issue between Congress and the Executive is NOT FOR THE COURTS. But now you and they are saying this should've gone through the courts??

Yes, because it is up for the courts to decide if they have the power of judicial review in this instance. Trump can claim whatever they want.

Look Obama played this game too, with Eric Holder ignoring Congressional subpoena, being held in contempt of Congress. That court case didn't finish until Obama left office, with the courts deciding on favor of Congress. There was no doubt that Congress had the power to subpoena, but we live in a country of laws and process. Republicans didn't try to impeach Obama for obstruction of Congress because the procedural struggles between the legislative and executive branches is a stupid reason to impeach a president for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Yes. That and a quarter will get you a telephone call. Happy now?

Dems had every opportunity to call in any so-called witnesses or Trump officials during the House impeachment phase.
They didn't do it because the full House never voted for impeachment, so Trump was free to shred any letters requesting (not subpoenas) to testify.

DP here, there is zero constitutional basis for needing a "full House vote" for subpoenaing witnesses in an investigation. This is a propaganda talking point.

There's no need for Bolton, or any Trump official, to testify because the "subpoenas" carries all the legal weight of a Publisher Clearing House prize notification letter.

The House didn't follow its own rules re: impeachment, so Trump is free to tell them to pound sand.

I don't think anyone is disputing Trump (or Bolton) was able to tell them to "pound sand" (he's said that, and more). BUT then their/his argument cannot be "I'm not getting due process!" And yours can't be "Bolton is a key fact witness but the House didn't subpoena him so nobody else can ever!" They made several statements and requests of the key people in the Administration, so your original post that they "had every opportunity to call in...witnesses" fails to acknowledge that they did request people's testimony. Whether some people were legally allowed to decline their request is NOT the thing up for dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, for the people (person?) suggesting the Senate shouldn't subpoena Bolton because the house should've gone through the courts -- are you aware of what the Administration's argument has been in these cases (e.g., Don McGahn's)? DOJ has argued that an issue between Congress and the Executive is NOT FOR THE COURTS. But now you and they are saying this should've gone through the courts??

Yes, because it is up for the courts to decide if they have the power of judicial review in this instance. Trump can claim whatever they want.

Look Obama played this game too, with Eric Holder ignoring Congressional subpoena, being held in contempt of Congress. That court case didn't finish until Obama left office, with the courts deciding on favor of Congress. There was no doubt that Congress had the power to subpoena, but we live in a country of laws and process. Republicans didn't try to impeach Obama for obstruction of Congress because the procedural struggles between the legislative and executive branches is a stupid reason to impeach a president for.

Well this is rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

We want Trump to testify too. That does mean we trust and believe everything he says. We may put more weight to his words if he provides testimony under oath though...

Are all trumpkins this clueless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, for the people (person?) suggesting the Senate shouldn't subpoena Bolton because the house should've gone through the courts -- are you aware of what the Administration's argument has been in these cases (e.g., Don McGahn's)? DOJ has argued that an issue between Congress and the Executive is NOT FOR THE COURTS. But now you and they are saying this should've gone through the courts??

Yes, because it is up for the courts to decide if they have the power of judicial review in this instance. Trump can claim whatever they want.

Look Obama played this game too, with Eric Holder ignoring Congressional subpoena, being held in contempt of Congress. That court case didn't finish until Obama left office, with the courts deciding on favor of Congress. There was no doubt that Congress had the power to subpoena, but we live in a country of laws and process. Republicans didn't try to impeach Obama for obstruction of Congress because the procedural struggles between the legislative and executive branches is a stupid reason to impeach a president for.

Well this is rich.

Your sarcastic contempt for facts is duly noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

God y'all are stupid as shit. The world isn't black and white.

Bolton is a fact witness claiming a direct conversation with the defendant about the topic at the heart of the entire case. His testimony is critical to the trial, whether what he testifies exonerates the man or not.

Didn’t Bolton claim Saddam had WMDs? So Bolton isn’t a war criminal anymore? No more to The Hague with Bolton? Ok!

Did Bolton say that under oath. Then he should be in jail. Does not mean if he is a witness to another crime he should be prohibited from testifying...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, for the people (person?) suggesting the Senate shouldn't subpoena Bolton because the house should've gone through the courts -- are you aware of what the Administration's argument has been in these cases (e.g., Don McGahn's)? DOJ has argued that an issue between Congress and the Executive is NOT FOR THE COURTS. But now you and they are saying this should've gone through the courts??

Yes, because it is up for the courts to decide if they have the power of judicial review in this instance. Trump can claim whatever they want.

Look Obama played this game too, with Eric Holder ignoring Congressional subpoena, being held in contempt of Congress. That court case didn't finish until Obama left office, with the courts deciding on favor of Congress. There was no doubt that Congress had the power to subpoena, but we live in a country of laws and process. Republicans didn't try to impeach Obama for obstruction of Congress because the procedural struggles between the legislative and executive branches is a stupid reason to impeach a president for.

Well this is rich.

Your sarcastic contempt for facts is duly noted.

In light of a sitting president with a near complete disregard for norms, procedures, policies, and the rule of law since even before he took office, your statement is an exercise in false equivalency, and in my opinion, rich.