Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

Why do you guys always personalize things? It is like you cannot understand that you can disagree with a person but still respect them.

Lol, I still remember Democrats calling Bolton evil racist warmonger who can't be trusted with the US foreign policy. Now all of a sudden you respect him? You guys made it personal, you are just being called out.

Bush= Hitler, until he trashed Trump

Romney= evil white billionaire until he trashed Trump

McCain= evil war monger until he trashed Trump and brought the false dossier to DC. He then became America’s war hero patriot, after that move.

Bolton= war criminal liar, until: today.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

Why do you guys always personalize things? It is like you cannot understand that you can disagree with a person but still respect them.

Lol, I still remember Democrats calling Bolton evil racist warmonger who can't be trusted with the US foreign policy. Now all of a sudden you respect him? You guys made it personal, you are just being called out.

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!

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.

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

Why do you guys always personalize things? It is like you cannot understand that you can disagree with a person but still respect them.

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.

Yup. His ideological positions don't really matter. He has first-hand access to the events that are material to the trial. That's why he needs to testify and the Senate needs to obtain all documentary evidence he might have. He should have retained all of it, per government archiving laws.

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

Democrats may not agree with him from a policy standpoint, but he has never been unpatriotic.

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.

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

I've always trusted and believed him. hated his guts, but trusted him and believed him.

Anonymous wrote:So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

He is a witness who was in the room, who has given firsthand accounts of what was said and done - and it's important to hear from him. This doesn't mean we agree what he wants or does.

Are Republicans really this stupid?

So democrats trust and believe Bolton now?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess she can re-tweet this when we get the audio where Trump actually orders someone to knee-cap Yavanovich. It didn't literally happen, so it can't have been wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. The House produces the rough equivalent of an indictment, which simply means they rendered a judgment saying they think charges should be brought (aka whether a trial should happen).

A trial includes discovery--collecting materials of potential relevance to the case--and deposing/cross-examining witnesses. The House did its job by producing a judgment. It's now up to the Senate to conduct a trial.

+2 This is the most simple fact that Trump proponents are either too uninformed or deliberately obtuse to acknowledge.

Not to mention that every single impeachment trial in our history has had additional witnesses testify in the Senate trial that the House investigation did not have testify.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. The House produces the rough equivalent of an indictment, which simply means they rendered a judgment saying they think charges should be brought (aka whether a trial should happen).

A trial includes discovery--collecting materials of potential relevance to the case--and deposing/cross-examining witnesses. The House did its job by producing a judgment. It's now up to the Senate to conduct a trial.