Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton bombshell

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  163 comments

Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton bombshell
When it comes to hearing new witnesses and evidence, GOP Senators have no arguments left. And no one is obliged to pretend there’s a shred of legitimacy to whatever excuses they do offer.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton bombshell


JANUARY 27, 2020

BJZYRICBBYI6VGOHDX6UEQNC7Y.jpg&w=150 (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

We have now   learned precisely what John Bolton is prepared to tell us   about President Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme. This is terribly inconvenient for Republican Senators who are frantically searching for ways to vote against hearing from Trump’s former national security adviser and any others who can shed fresh light on Trump’s corrupt conduct.

After all, new revelations might complicate their preordained vote for acquittal, and that must not happen before that vote is cast.

Bolton writes in an unpublished manuscript of his new book that Trump personally told him he was withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until officials there carried out the political dirty deeds he was demanding,   the New York Times reports .

According to Bolton, he and Trump discussed the matter in August 2019, when Bolton and others were urging Trump to release the aid. Trump said he preferred not to until Ukrainian officials turned over materials related to two false theories — one involving   invented Joe Biden corruption in Ukraine , the other concerning   fabricated Ukrainian interference   in the 2016 election.

This directly undercuts one of Trump’s key defenses — that the aid wasn’t frozen to coerce Ukraine into doing his political bidding. Here are four key takeaways:

Trump   rage-tweeted   that he “NEVER” told Bolton the aid was tied to those investigations, and reiterated that the transcript of his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky exonerated him.

Nonsense. First, remember that Trump’s extortion demand   was   conveyed to Zelensky. This   actually happened . Ambassador Gordon Sondland   told a top Zelensky aide   that the money was indeed conditioned on those investigations.

Trump’s propagandists claim Sondland freelanced this, based on his declaration that he merely “presumed” a link. That was always absurd: Sondland took direction from Trump throughout, and Sondland   even testified   that Trump told him to convey to Zelensky that he must do Trump’s bidding, even as Zelensky was desperate for the money.

But now we have Bolton prepared to testify that   Trump himself   directly confirmed this link to him, wrecking the “hearsay” defense. If Bolton were lying, you’d think Trump would want him to testify under oath, since Bolton’s account is set to appear in a book. Unless the game is to prevent his testimony to the Senate   before   the vote on Trump’s fate.

Separately, the transcript   just does   show Trump using the power of his office to pressure Zelensky. Trump cannot make this disappear through disinformation. And so, his actual claim is that there’s nothing wrong with having done this.

Bolton’s lawyer   says   he provided the manuscript to the White House on Dec. 30 for classification review — nearly a month ago.

Importantly, the Times reports that the manuscript may have given Trump’s lawyers a preview of what Bolton would testify. Note:

It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying, according to two people familiar with their concerns.

It appears Trump’s team wanted to block Bolton’s testimony for the express reason that Bolton would further incriminate Trump.

Trump’s lawyers   have claimed at his trial   that “not a single witness” has “testified” to “any connection” between the aid and the investigations. This weasel language is telling: If it’s true that no witness has testified to this, it’s   precisely because   Trump blocked witnesses who   could   testify to it, such as Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

We now know Bolton   actually would   testify to this, which illustrates that the only way to make that defense technically true is for Trump and GOP Senators to prevent him from testifying. Thus, that defense has been reduced to smoldering wreckage.

Ned Price, a National Security Council official from 2014 to 2017, told me that internal declassification processes in such cases suggest it’s likely Trump’s legal team did indeed access Bolton’s manuscript.

Bolton’s lawyer   submitted   it to the Records Management Directorate in the White House. Price pointed out that the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, is leading Trump’s impeachment defense, which likely means Cipollone did get his hands on it.

It was also widely known publicly that Bolton was shopping the manuscript around and that he’d indicated a willingness to testify at Trump’s trial —   three weeks ago .

“The White House counsel has tremendous reach inside any White House, especially this one,” Price told me. “It’s within the purview of the White House counsel to review records in the possession of the executive office of the president. It’s almost certain he would have sought the manuscript.”

Jack Goldsmith, a White House lawyer under former president George W. Bush,   adds   that such manuscripts generally are internally circulated “widely.”

So it’s very likely the White House knows exactly how Bolton would further incriminate Trump — and that this is exactly why Trump doesn’t want him to testify.

GOP Senators may seize on Trump’s latest tweets to claim that, since he denies Bolton’s account, there’s no reason to hear from Bolton, reports CNN’s Manu Raju:


Many Senate Rs will very likely point to this tweet to say they don’t need to hear from Bolton since Trump denies it   https://t.co/x3ITSfBbw7
— Manu Raju (@mkraju)   January 27, 2020

This would be insane. The very fact that there is a dispute over something so absolutely central to Trump’s conduct should make GOP Senators   want   to hear from Bolton, since they themselves think of him as credible, and this would allow them to judge his testimony for themselves.

Taking the contrary position would be tantamount to saying we don’t need to hear from witnesses who contradict Trump’s protestations of innocence for the sole reason that the truth is what Trump says it is.

At this point, of course, this really is the position of many Trump defenders. But there is no longer any denying that any GOP Senator who goes along with this is willfully and knowingly carrying Trump’s coverup to completion.

When it comes to hearing new witnesses and evidence, GOP Senators have no arguments left. And no one is obliged to pretend there’s a shred of legitimacy to whatever excuses they do offer.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Transyferous Rex
1  Transyferous Rex    3 weeks ago
Trump said he preferred not to until Ukrainian officials turned over materials related to two false theories — one involving invented Joe Biden corruption in Ukraine

Silly kids. Its merely coincidence that Hunter sat on the board. Nothing to see there. People get high paying positions concerning shit they know nothing about all of the time, especially overseas. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Transyferous Rex @1    3 weeks ago

Not really ANY people.  

Usually its just people with elitist connections.    Like people who's daddy just happens to be VPOTUS.

Leaving John/Susie Q Public out in the dark once again ......

 
 
 
katrix
1.2  katrix  replied to  Transyferous Rex @1    3 weeks ago

Just like it's just coincidence that Ivanka was granted 3 new trademarks the day she dined with her daddy and the Chinese president ... although she had claimed she would shut down her business. Trademarks she's gotten from the Chinese include one for voting machines, of all things.

Nothing to see there, right?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.2    3 weeks ago

Yes, very unsettling but if that unsettles you.   So should deals like Hunter Bidens.  

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.2  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Hunter got a job that he wasn't qualified for, but that doesn't rise to the level of what Ivanka did. Hell, Ivanka has a job that she isn't qualified for, and her daddy gave her a top secret clearance against all intelligence advice. That's a lot worse.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
Hunter got a job that he wasn't qualified for, but that doesn't rise to the level of what Ivanka did. Hell, Ivanka has a job that she isn't qualified for, and her daddy gave her a top secret clearance against all intelligence advice. That's a lot worse.

Interesting rationalizations for an intelligent person such as yourself.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @1.2    3 weeks ago
Trademarks she's gotten from the Chinese include one for voting machines, of all things.

Evidence?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
Yes, very unsettling but if that unsettles you.   So should deals like Hunter Bidens.   You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Lutsenko stated that Hunter Biden broke NO laws in Ukraine. 

Since the Prosecutor General of Ukraine 'exonerated' Hunter Biden, he obviously did so after his office looked into the issue. 

So since we're comparing Hunter Biden and Ivanka Trump, WHEN will the AG look into the issue of Ivanka Trump using here position AND taxpayer funds to enrich herself? 

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.6  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
Evidence?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-ivanka/china-grants-more-trademark-approvals-for-ivanka-trump-firm-including-voting-machines-idUSKCN1NB0TL

 China last month granted initial approval for 16 new trademarks for the fashion brand of U.S. President Donald Trump’s daughter and adviser Ivanka, including voting machines , a search of official records on Tuesday showed. 
 
 
 
katrix
1.2.7  katrix  replied to  lib50 @1.2.6    3 weeks ago

Of course, the next time someone posts that particular fact, he'll screech about evidence again.

It's a trolling tactic, clearly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @1.2.7    3 weeks ago
'It's a trolling tactic, clearly.'

That's all a handful of posters have to offer here.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.9  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.5    3 weeks ago

Okay, since you seem to have such faith in Ukrainians now, you would do well to remember that President Zelensky has clearly stated he and Trump never had the "quid pro quo" discussion that is at the center of this impeachment case.

But that hasn't stopped this leftist impeachment meltdown one iota has it?

Classic partisan bias.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.9    3 weeks ago

'Okay, since you seem to have such faith in Ukrainians now, you would do well to remember that President Zelensky has clearly stated he and Trump never had the "quid pro quo" discussion that is at the center of this impeachment case.'

Of course Zelensky said that while tRump was effectively holding him hostage.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.11  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.10    3 weeks ago

That's a fine fairy tale... glad it works for you.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.11    3 weeks ago

That's a fine fairy tale... glad it works for you.

Fairy tale...?

Sounds like damn logic and common sense to me.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.13  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.12    3 weeks ago
Sounds like damn logic and common sense to me.

Yes, in some cases i understand it might ....

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.9    3 weeks ago
Okay, since you seem to have such faith in Ukrainians now, you would do well to remember that President Zelensky has clearly stated he and Trump never had the "quid pro quo" discussion that is at the center of this impeachment case.

Ah, deflection. 

Why not address the content of my comment instead? 

BTFW, it sure as hell looks like Trump and Giuliani have WAY more faith in Ukrainians that I do. THEY are the ones that wanted Ukraine to investigate American citizens. 

But that hasn't stopped this leftist impeachment meltdown one iota has it? Classic partisan bias.  

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.15  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.14    3 weeks ago
Ah, deflection.

Yeah you would call it that but i understand why you might try to call it that.    Since it shows the bias at work here in your argument

Why not address the content of my comment instead?

Why would i since it was clearly only a "deflection" on your part.

You can't have your cake and eat it to .....

 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.15    3 weeks ago
Yeah you would call it that but i understand why you might try to call it that.    Since it shows the bias at work here in your argument

How does YOUR deflection show bias in MY argument Sparty? 

We were taking about Hunter and Ivanka and you deflect to Zelensky. You also FAILED to answer the question I asked. Your comment was a defection. OWN it. 

Why would i since it was clearly only a "deflection" on your part.

Again, we were taking about Hunter and Ivanka and my question was based on that issue. HOW is that a deflection Sparty? 

Hint: It's NOT. 

You can't have your cake and eat it to .....

Why not, you certainly seem to be insisting that you can...

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.17  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.9    3 weeks ago
Classic partisan bias. 

Speaking of classic partisan bias, where is the outrage from the right about the surveillance of the Ambassador to the Ukraine? No FISA warrant, no nothing but Trump playing dictator. Yet nothing but crickets despite the total outrage over Carter Page.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.18  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.16    3 weeks ago
How does YOUR deflection show bias in MY argument Sparty?

What deflection?   Yours?   I never made one Dulay.   My comment clearly counterpointed yours.   You hang your hat on what the Ukrainian AG says and i point out that the AG's comment is clearly irrelevant because his boss claims it never happened.   And yet you fail to consider that.   Own IT!

We were taking about Hunter and Ivanka and you deflect to Zelensky. You also FAILED to answer the question I asked. Your comment was a defection. OWN it.

I was talking about Biden.   Someone else deflected to Ivanka.   As to your deflection why she was never investigated you'd have to ask Barr that Dulay.

Why would i since it was clearly only a "deflection" on your part.

Again, we were taking about Hunter and Ivanka and my question was based on that issue. HOW is that a deflection Sparty? 

Hint: It's NOT.

Sure it is.   OWN IT!

You can't have your cake and eat it to .....
Why not, you certainly seem to be insisting that you can...

I'm not the one trying to do that Dulay.   Own It!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.19  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @1.2.17    3 weeks ago
Speaking of classic partisan bias, where is the outrage from the right about the surveillance of the Ambassador to the Ukraine? No FISA warrant, no nothing but Trump playing dictator.

Here is the correct version of your missive;

No FISA warrant necessary, just Trump being the BOSS, interested in what his underling was up to. 

That's how it works in the Executive Branch.  ALL employees are working at the pleasure of the President. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.20  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.2.17    3 weeks ago

I don't think you want to go the surveillance route.   Not without indicting the Obama admin in a much, much bigger way.

You remember all THAT right?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.21  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.20    3 weeks ago

think her point might be

.

Where's the damn outrage when Trump plays dicktator tot

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.18    3 weeks ago

It isn't worth my time to argue with someone who refuses to accept reality. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.23  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.21    3 weeks ago

And if thats an issue with some here today, where was their outrage all the times similar things or worse, happened during the Obama admin?

Drip, drip, dripping hypocrisy in here ..... woot

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.24  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @1.2.22    3 weeks ago

My thoughts exactly in your case as well.

See we can agree on something.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.25  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.23    3 weeks ago

Similar things and worse things, DIDN'T happen during the Obama administration.  

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.26  katrix  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.25    3 weeks ago

Illegal surveillance of an ambassador is much worse than anything the Obama administration did. But no outrage from the right - because nothing Trump does will ever bother them.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.27  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.10    3 weeks ago
Of course Zelensky said that while tRump was effectively holding him hostage.  

Bullshit..................

Zelensky, in an interview in October, said he was unaware that the military aid was suspended when he spoke to Trump in July.

“I did not speak with US President Trump in those terms: you give me this, I give you that,” Zelensky told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview published Monday.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/02/ukraines-zelensky-again-denies-quid-pro-quo-during-trump-phone-call/
 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.28  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @1.2.26    3 weeks ago
Illegal surveillance of an ambassador is much worse than anything the Obama administration did.

A President having an employee watched is not illegal katrix, no matter how you wish it were so.

Oh, and per the courts, the Obama administration did in fact obtain FISA warrants illegally.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.29  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.27    3 weeks ago

Like Zelensky is going to say tRump did anything wrong while effectively holding him hostage.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.30  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.29    3 weeks ago
Like Zelensky is going to say tRump did anything wrong while effectively holding him hostage. 

So now you're calling the President of a foreign nation a liar?

Do you have any evidence to support that claim, or is it just your supposition and theory?

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.31  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.28    3 weeks ago

Even Presidents still have to follow the law, and having an Ambassador surveilled for political reasons rather than for national security reasons doesn't cut it.

I can't believe you're actually defending this surveillance.

But ... then per you, Obama didn't need the warrants anyway, so why are you so concerned with any surveillance he put in place?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.32  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @1.2.31    3 weeks ago
having an Ambassador surveilled for political reasons rather than for national security reasons doesn't cut it.

Having one surveilled to determine if he/she is following the Foreign Policy directives of the President is most certainly well within the rights of the President.  An Ambassador, while reporting to the Secretary of State is none the less a POLITICAL appointee and subject to essentially the whims of the President.  Period.  end of story.

But ... then per you, Obama didn't need the warrants anyway, so why are you so concerned with any surveillance he put in place?

Obama was surveilling PRIVATE CITIZENS not political appointees.  BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.33  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.32    3 weeks ago

You might want to let Ukraine know that, since they've opened a criminal investigation into the possible surveillance of the ambassador.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.34  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @1.2.31    3 weeks ago
having an Ambassador surveilled for political reasons rather than for national security reasons doesn't cut it.

Of course you know that was the reason right? /s

That is pure supposition, innuendo, palm reading. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.35  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.23    3 weeks ago

Drip, drip, dripping hypocrisy in here ..... woot

thought you were brewing Maxwell House

Hypocrisy... good to the last we can you can't

Warning, women who are preg...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.34    3 weeks ago
Of course you know that was the reason right? /s

and what does your crystal ball say...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.37  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @1.2.33    3 weeks ago
You might want to let Ukraine know that, since they've opened a criminal investigation into the possible surveillance of the ambassador.

They can investigate whatever they desire.  But it does not negate the fact that the President has the authority to watch a political appointee whenever and wherever (s)he so desires.  Ambassadors work for and at the pleasure of the President, whoever that might be.

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.38  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.37    3 weeks ago

Really?  The president can unilaterally order surveillance on an American without going through a legal process?

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.39  katrix  replied to  lib50 @1.2.38    3 weeks ago

That is very hard for me to believe.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.40  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @1.2.38    3 weeks ago
Really?  The president can unilaterally order surveillance on an American without going through a legal process?

Reading is an imperative.  

But it does not negate the fact that the President has the authority to watch a political appointee.

The last two words are imperative to understand.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.41  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.34    3 weeks ago
That is pure supposition, innuendo, palm reading. 

Apparently you haven't bothered reading facts about it. Unsurprising. You'll do anything to defend your orange idol. And it's hilarious how you accept all his lies and innuendo as fact while refusing to believe actual facts.

The Koolaid is strong for the TDS people. Denial isn't healthy when used in such large quantities.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.42  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @1.2.41    3 weeks ago
The Koolaid is strong for the TDS people.

Thanks for admitting that the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) people are gulping the kool-aid in massive quantities.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.43  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @1.2.41    3 weeks ago
it's hilarious how you accept all his lies and innuendo as fact while refusing to believe actual facts.

What facts are you referring to? Zelensky himself said there was no quid pro quo. See post #1.2.27 and read allllll  about it. Short term memory seems to run rampant in the TDS ward of NT. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.44  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.43    3 weeks ago

Facts? FFS you have to wait until Adam Schitt makes them up before you can see them.

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.45  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.40    3 weeks ago
the President has the authority to watch a political appointee.

Please site that law and its parameters. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.46  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @1.2.45    3 weeks ago
Please site that law and its parameters.

No law needed.   His other option is simply fire him/her.  No reason necessary.  Hell, it could as simple as not liking the color worn on the day of the firing.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.47  dennis smith  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.34    3 weeks ago

That is pure supposition, innuendo, palm reading. 

It is nothing more than a continuation of the Shiff sniveling and begging to be listened to over the last few days.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.48  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.25    3 weeks ago

I suppose you feel that the NSA and FBI violating specific civil liberty protections, of ALL AMERICANS during the Obama administration was just ..... O.K. .....  i could go on but i know it falls on deaf ears so there is no point.

Keep rafting down the river of denial but i hope you are wearing a PFD .... you're gonna need it.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.49  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.46    3 weeks ago

I don't think the President is legally allowed to spy on anyone, including ambassadors, without going through a legal process. I haven't found anything to support your claim, and I have tried. Please provide something to back it up. Spying is far different that "watching over" - have you bothered to read the information that's come out about this surveillance?

Trump is NOT above the law, and I find it very sad that you support his desire to be a dictator. I wonder if you'll be so defensive when a Democratic president abuses his/her power the way Trump abuses his.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.50  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @1.2.49    3 weeks ago
I don't think the President is legally allowed to spy on anyone, including ambassadors, without going through a legal process.

Well then, you better start working to indict Bush and Obama as well then.  Likely other Presidents as well.    All have done just that.

Spying is far different that "watching over"

I think the people being "watched over" might disagree with you .... including you if you were being "watched over."

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.51  lib50  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.50    3 weeks ago

You'll have to actually have proof, and that would not be the lies Trump and the gop have been telling about Trump being 'spied' on.  If you take away the bullshit, you'll know there WAS NO ILLEGAL SPYING BY OBAMA.  Bush either as far as I know.    Put up or stfu.   With truth.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.52  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @1.2.51    3 weeks ago

The "proof" is clearly out there to anyone who isn't a totally biased fool.   

A simple google search brings up a plethora of "proof" but there is really no point to putting it up here to the closed minded.   Regardless, here's one, even though it won't matter.   Not to a bunch of biased, whiny little babies who admitted on 11-09-16 they would never accept Trump no matter what he does or doesn't do.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343785-newly-declassified-memos-detail-extent-of-improper-obama-era-nsa   

I'm sure that group of myopic, crybabies really enjoyed being surveilled during the Obama admin.   That's how obtuse that group of dumbasses is.

That said, go lecture someone else who gives a shit about your opinion .....

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.54  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.53    3 weeks ago

It won't do any good.  

They're working on all their rationalizations right now why our links are all wrong.

Such is the Newstalker BMOC shuffle .....

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.55  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.43    3 weeks ago

Of course he said there was no quid pro quo while being held hostage.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.56  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.55    3 weeks ago
Of course he said there was no quid pro quo while being held hostage.  

Great talking point from the hive but the worker drones could use some new material.   Time to report back in ....... buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz .....

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.57  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.55    3 weeks ago

Damn it. You need to read some of the posts put up here. He first said it last October. Well after Ukraine got the money. He WASN"T being held hostage by any stretch. Get a new Shtick. That one is worn out pretty badly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.58  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.57    3 weeks ago

Like Zelensky would disagree with tRump while he was being held hostage . 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.59  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.58    3 weeks ago
Like Zelensky would disagree with tRump while he was being held hostage

Exactly. This is one of their most ignorant and just blatantly stupid defenses. "The guy we extorted and still haven't given a white house meeting to who is still at war and desperate for American financial support since we fund 10% of their defenses just said he didn't feel any pressure. So it's all good, nothing to see here...". I really have to wonder about a brain that would accept that as a viable defense.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.60  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.59    3 weeks ago

[deleted] By law, Ukraine gets the funding that Congress approves. Trump be damned. BY LAW!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.61  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.60    3 weeks ago
By law, Ukraine gets the funding that Congress approves. Trump be damned. BY LAW!!!

But they DIDN'T Jim.

It took a SECOND act of Congress to release the funds that they approved in the 2019 budget. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.62  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @1.2    3 weeks ago

'Just like it's just coincidence that Ivanka was granted 3 new trademarks the day she dined with her daddy and the Chinese president ... although she had claimed she would shut down her business. Trademarks she's gotten from the Chinese include one for voting machines, of all things.

Nothing to see there, right?'

83996544_10221488906354318_8078200135013

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.63  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.56    3 weeks ago

The hive, your usual nonsense.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.64  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.57    3 weeks ago
'Damn it. You need to read some of the posts put up here.'

No, damn it, I DON'T

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.2.65  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.63    2 weeks ago

Whining about posts you don’t agree with.    Your usual useless drivel.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.2.66  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.62    2 weeks ago

Tessylo you asked an answered your own question the difference between Biden and all the others.

THEY ALL "WORK" Hunter Biden did nothing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

A good friend of mine went to Yale with him.   What does he think of Bolton?

"He's a dick!   The guy would do ANYTHING to sell his book."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

I'm not sure what you think calling Bolton a "dick" accomplishes. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago

Lol, simmer down and read it again John.   Then  you can change your post to something more honest.

I couldn't have been more clear.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
I couldn't have been more clear.

I know, and I replied to it. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago

The only reason you are not calling Bolton a dick is because he said something bad about Trump.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
We don't agree on a lot here which is fine but i thought you were better than that.

Well Sparty, so much for those random thoughts!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
lib50
2.1.7  lib50  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.4    3 weeks ago
The only reason you are not calling Bolton a dick is because he said something bad about Trump.

Lol.  And vice versa

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @2    3 weeks ago
A good friend of mine went to Yale with him.   What does he think of Bolton? "He's a dick! 

I think he's a dick as well.

That does not exclude me from wanting to hear what the dick has to sa... spit out , cause my wanting all the facts so as one can make an informed decision and or conclusion as to what actually happened over rides party, and or 'dicks' . It is pretty damn obvious before Bolton butted in with his FIRST HAND COMPLETE OPPOSITE RENDITION of what Trump has stated, and is consistent with what we've heard those testify state, Trump example, an Administrator readily ADMIT to already, that Trumpp DID atempt to leverage the dude whose name begins with Z.

.

And before any want to say the house should have investigated him, his underling with who he shares an attorney, has already sued and taken to court the House, and it's been almost a year.

The GOP Senate, with their party over country Bull Ship, is just downright FCKN ridiculous at this point.

Hippo critical clowns, like their fearstricken leader, are not true Americans in my eyes, as if this were ANY other potUS, be they  Libertarian, Democratic, or Independent, I would CERTAINLY want ALL of the Evidence, but as i've seen enough already, it wouldn't matter.

For ANY President to attempt to pull off what Trump has, I would DEFINITELY want them REMOVED from office, but hey, i'm silly when it comes to our leaders having morals and ethics, and wanting them to obey OUR OWN DAMN LAWS, but, that's just Me.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
2.3  Larry Hampton  replied to  Sparty On @2    3 weeks ago

A good friend of mine, went Yale with your good friend, and said he was a dick.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Larry Hampton @2.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.1    3 weeks ago

Sparty, saying that individual people here have "TDS"  is a coc violation.  At least three coc violations have been given out for just that reason recently. 

Thats nice ..... except my comment is the truth and yours is a complete fabrication. Lying ..... the TDS ridden are getting very good at it.   Perhaps they always were.

You are directly suggesting that Larry has "TDS".  I suggest you stop unless you want coc tickets. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.2    3 weeks ago
You are directly suggesting that Larry has "TDS".

I disagree but feel free to report it .... it'll be like Christmas morning for you if it gets deleted

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
2.3.4  Larry Hampton  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.1    3 weeks ago
except my comment is the truth and yours is a complete fabrication.

I can prove my "good friend" exists, about as much as you can yours.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  Larry Hampton @2.3.4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.5    3 weeks ago

I wonder how many people went to school with Trump and came out of it thinking he is a dick. 

All of them? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.3.7  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.6    3 weeks ago

Really John?   An extrapolation of the Peewee Herman "i know you are but what am i" gambit.

You can do better .....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.3.7    3 weeks ago

I was just wondering why you thought it was meaningful to say one of your friends thinks John Bolton is a dick. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.6    3 weeks ago

His own mother allegedly said he's a moron and an asshole, but he is her SON.  Hoped he'd never get into politics as it would be a disaster.  

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
2.3.10  Larry Hampton  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.8    3 weeks ago

Because he has a friend who’s brother’s sister said she knew someone who ,,,,

Seen it before. Someone trying to gain points by claiming to have an “insider scoop”. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

Too little, too late, and what Bolton said cannot be corroborated by trusted sources.

The vote to acquit might come as early as the end of this week.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
Too little, too late,

Direct testimony that would show Trump is guilty ( if you believe Bolton) is "too little too late"?   LOL. Well at least you are consistent Greg. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

Mueller report failed, IG report failed, House inquiry failed because an impeachable crime was not committed.

Every dirty thing the Trump haters have tried has failed, as will this "January Surprise"

Let the voters decide, the Dems don't have the numbers or suitable candidate to beat him

No way will there be 67 votes to remove Trump from office.

Once cleared, he will apologize for making an inappropriate phone call, and resume campaigning for reelection.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Mueller report failed, IG report failed, House inquiry failed because an impeachable crime was not committed. Every dirty thing the Trump haters have tried has failed, as will this "January Surprise"

Don't worry Greg.   Their new theme song will be;

She'll be comin round the mountain when she comes when she comes.

What they have yet to understand is that the road ahead, just like all the other roads they took got washed out in the last rain storm.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago
testimony that would show Trump is guilty

JR....   if the House did not have evidence, what the fuck did they impeach him on?  Yeah, I know.  Rumors, supposition, conjecture, innuendo, hearsay, and hurt feelings.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

JR....   if the House did not have evidence, what the fuck did they impeach him on?  Yeah, I know.  Rumors, supposition, conjecture, innuendo, hearsay, and hurt feelings.

They had a 100 more times the evidence than was brought against Clinton.

You can put your head in the sand, and attempt spin, but there is so much evidence and just because some don't wish to see it ( say like our R Senators) it does not mean it does not exist. It has just been IGNORED.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.6  1stwarrior  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

Ahhhh - makes sense.  Guess that's why Clinton was charged with 11 counts and Trump only two - because of the "100 more times the evidence".

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

Do you recall a guy named Kenneth Star, you know, the one who had a few years to build a case against Slick Willy.

Trumpp s behavior has proven we don't have time for a few year investigation.

And YOU DO UNDERSTAND,

Trumpp

could have had MANY MORE ARTICLES charged against him.

The Dems tried to keep it simple, so as Trumpp supporters could still follow, even though they have still proven incapable.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

If Starr had been against Trump instead of for him Trump would have nicknamed him Snoozy Starr.  His presentation today was a bore fest of monumental proportions. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
They had a 100 more times the evidence than was brought against Clinton.

But even you have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton surrendered his law license in essence for his perjury in the Starr investigation. 

But all they have regarding President Trump is rumor, conjecture, supposition, innuendo and hurt feelings.  None of which are illegal, an abuse of power or obstructing congress.

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

 What do you consider a few years investigation?  It has been over 3 years already.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
what Bolton said cannot be corroborated by trusted sources

First you screech that there isn't enough firsthand evidence. Now that there is firsthand evidence, you refuse to accept it.

Trump supporters are allergic to facts, it seems.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @3.2    3 weeks ago

As they become more and more painted into a corner, their ultimate rationale (Trump must be protected no matter what) is becoming more disturbing. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @3.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

LOL. How is that kool aid? 

924745623-jim-jones.png

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.4  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

I was referring to Bolton, who, in my opinion, is lying.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.6  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @3.2    3 weeks ago

What first hand evidence?  If it came out of Bolton's mouth, it's a lie - it's hearsay, innuendo, "what if's", or "I thought".

You need to look at Bolton's history - he's a very hated person and a very, very egotistical person who will stretch a lie to its fullest extent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

Its so weird that you will say that about Bolton but wont say it about Trump, who it applies to much more. 

How do you explain that? 

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.8  katrix  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.6    3 weeks ago
If it came out of Bolton's mouth, it's a lie - it's hearsay, innuendo, "what if's", or "I thought".

Funny how anyone who can attest to Trump's misdeeds is automatically dismissed as a liar or a bad person - yet Trump, who lies more than anyone and is a terrible person, is always given a free pass. I'd sure believe Bolton's testimony over any of Trump's idiotic, lying tweets.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.9  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @3.2.8    3 weeks ago

I've never heard or read of a lie that can be attributed to Trump.

And why do you consider him to be a terrible person? You sound a tad judgmental.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.10  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
I've never heard or read of a lie that can be attributed to Trump.

Apparently, you avoid any sources that present facts. Over 10,000 lies since he's been in office and you've managed to avoid hearing about a single one of them - that's impressive willful ignorance!

And why do you consider him to be a terrible person?

Oh, please. Again - apparently you avoid factual sources. Or is defrauding students, stiffing small businesses, bringing his wife and mistress to the same ski resort at the same time, running a fraudulent charity, doing his best to increase the divide in America, sucking up to evil dictators not qualify a person as terrible in your mind?

You sound a tad judgmental.

Yeah, for some reason, con men irritate me. I happen to be a fan of ethics and morals, but I understand that these are anathema to Trump's base.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.11  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.7    3 weeks ago

Could be that I'm staying on topic - something the two of you need to do - by discussing Bolton.

Try it - you might like it.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.12  lib50  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.11    3 weeks ago
discussing Bolton.

And since Trump happens to be the TOPIC of Bolton's words, he is relevant. Trump is a liar over literally everything.  I don't even like Bolton, but he is believable.  Central to the topic here.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lib50 @3.2.12    3 weeks ago
I don't even like Bolton, but he is believable.

Ahhhh reminiscing..................

Comey is a hero

Now, Comey is a prick

Now Comey is a hero again.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.14  lib50  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.13    3 weeks ago

Comey?  Talk about irrelevant!  And I never said that about Comey, so wtf?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.15  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.6    3 weeks ago
What first hand evidence?  If it came out of Bolton's mouth, it's a lie - it's hearsay, innuendo, "what if's", or "I thought".

Bolton's book states that Trump told him this, face to face. That is first hand evidence. 

You're welcome. 

You need to look at Bolton's history - he's a very hated person and a very, very egotistical person who will stretch a lie to its fullest extent.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Bolton worked for Trump, the man who epitomizes that description.  

The GOP rammed Bolton into the UN. To this day, he is entitled to the most elevated position he has held in the government and they call him Ambassador Bolton. Most of the GOP cheered when Bolton brought his unique version of 'diplomacy' to that position. 

Most of Trump's supporters here cheered when Bolton was brought on board exactly because he's hated [by liberals], very egotistical and a National security hawk. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

I was referring to Bolton, who, in my opinion, is lying.

Why do you automatically assume this ?
Trumpp is the PROVEN LIAR of LIARS here, but asz usual, his flock will deflect WHAT THEY HAVE TO KNOW.
TRUMPP IS THE LIAR !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
I've never heard or read of a lie that can be attributed to Trump.

No one should have to tolerate such blatant and comical bamboozling on a discussion forum. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.17    3 weeks ago
No one should have to tolerate such blatant and comical bamboozling on a discussion forum. 

No one forced you to do anything.

It is your choice, and to complain about it seems stupid.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.19  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
I've never heard or read of a lie that can be attributed to Trump.

Greg, have you seen a tv news show (not Fox) or read a newspaper in the past four years? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.20  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.18    3 weeks ago

Oh, we are forced to tolerate it.  Anyone who responds to him the way his comment actually merits, they will be deleted. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2.21  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.18    3 weeks ago

It is your choice, and to complain about it seems stupid.

says one complaining...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.20    3 weeks ago
Oh, we are forced to tolerate it.

Quick, tell me who is forcing you and I will give the cops a call to come rescue you!

You are free to leave.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.23  1stwarrior  replied to  lib50 @3.2.12    3 weeks ago

Bolton is believable????  Only when he wants the U.S. to go to war with everyone on the planet Earth.

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.24  lib50  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.23    3 weeks ago

Sorry, but since Trump is the biggest liar in the history of the country, have to choose Bolton as the one closest to the truth.  Put them both under oath.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.25  katrix  replied to  Dulay @3.2.15    3 weeks ago
Most of the GOP cheered when Bolton brought his unique version of 'diplomacy' to that position. 

The righties will eat their own young if they bruise Trump's massive ego.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.22    3 weeks ago
You are free to leave.

Then you wouldn't have anywhere to whine because it's John's seed. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @3    3 weeks ago
what Bolton said cannot be corroborated by trusted sources

Bolton was trusted by conservatives, till he didn't mindlessly repeat the narrative Trump sycophants developed in an effort to protect their Dear leader.

And all the civil servants who testified corroborated the claims made. The idea that anyone who doesn't get in line and do as they're told are somehow no longer to be trusted is just sad. Trump is channeling Stalin in his peerless paranoia.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.1  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.3.2  dennis smith  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3    3 weeks ago

Just because Bolton says something does not mean it is true. Hopefully the dems hang their hat on his word as they have by relying on what other have said with no proof to back it up. Innuendos, hearsay, etc does not change because Bolton says so. 

The timing of Bolton's release is no coincidence. Just another orchestration by the hapless dems.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.3.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @3.3.1    3 weeks ago
removed for context

You perfectly describe all the sycophant enablers lining up to get their daily load of lies from their Dear Leader dishonest [Donald.deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
3.3.4  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @3.3.4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
freepress
4  freepress    3 weeks ago

1. Guilty, 2. Guilty, 3. Guilty, 4. Guilty. That is what I take away from the constant lies and refusal to turn over documents or call witnesses. No innocent person would refuse the evidence to truly exonerate them. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1  Ronin2  replied to  freepress @4    3 weeks ago

Never been in a court of law have you? People are told to stay silent all the time and withhold witnesses if the prosecution turns out to be a pack of morons set on self destruction.

The Democrats are the pack of morons set on self destruction in case you missed it.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.1  lib50  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1    3 weeks ago

Projection

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  freepress @4    3 weeks ago

If any of this so called bombshell was valid, the Dems would have had Bolton release it long ago since Bolton already had it in the manuscript.

The bigger question should be, who leaked the manuscript...the same person who told Feinstein about Ms.Blasey Ford?

We were told that the pro-impeachment crowd will try to slip in some of these last minute "gotcha now" assertions.

Again...too little, too late....the people are aware of the Dems tactics by now.

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.1  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    3 weeks ago

Too little too late?  So crimes by a president can't be addressed once a case for the crimes is laid out?  And new info is irrelevant?  In what world is ignoring crimes ever a good thing?  If more comes out, it needs addressed.  Unless they don't want the truth to come out.  Surprise.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lib50 @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
Too little too late?  So crimes by a president can't be addressed once a case for the crimes is laid out?  And new info is irrelevant?  In what world is ignoring crimes ever a good thing?  If more comes out, it needs addressed.

Yes. The "evidence" presented was enough for the House to draft and approve two articles of impeachment. Meaning, they (snicker) found him guilty with what they have. No more evidence should be needed from Johnny Come Lately's now that the House has concluded and presented their cut and dried (snicker) evidence. Slam dunk right? RIGHT?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
4.2.3  lib50  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

You won't be laughing when it comes out despite Trump and his cult's attempts to keep it all suppressed.  Americans hear it and that is what matters.  They will hear the truth no matter how hard republicans try to stop it because the idiot is such a security breach anybody in the room with him can record him at will.  Can you imagine what Putin has?  I remember when the gop went apeshit over emails.  Now we just wait for another piece of evidence to hit the light.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lib50 @4.2.3    3 weeks ago
the idiot is such a security breach anybody in the room with him can record him at will.

But yet his underling ambassador in Ukraine is off limits and can't be surveilled by her boss???? Where I have worked, the "bosses" have ways to do basically the same thing with emails, files in the computer even up to recording key strokes (only one dumbass did that and thought he'd get mileage out of it.

Again,   jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.5  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @4.2.3    3 weeks ago
They will hear the truth no matter how hard republicans try to stop it because the idiot is such a security breach anybody in the room with him can record him at will. 

Here's the correct way to state what you should have;

They will hear the truth no matter how hard Democrats try to stop it because the idiots Pelosi and Schiff with Nadler (The three stooges I believe is their stage name.) want to pursue their vitriolic hatred of President Trump with the current charade being played out in the chamber of the US Senate.  The Democrats had their time in the sun and now the truth will come out thanks to the Republicans and the legal team of President Trump and set the record straight.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5  XDm9mm    3 weeks ago

Another verse, just like the first.

I heard it through the grapevine.

Somewhere over the rainbow.

So a man trying to hustle a book, with a hard-on for the man that fired him, is not going to make shit up.   Only in the minds of the Trump haters of America is that a sensible concept.

 
 
 
katrix
5.1  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @5    3 weeks ago
So a man trying to hustle a book, with a hard-on for the man that fired him, is not going to make shit up.

Actually, plenty of people are honest enough to tell the truth, whether or not they dislike someone. The Trump administration's constant lies, lack of ethics, and constant attacks on anyone who doesn't suck up to Trump seem to have made some people forget that not everyone is as dishonest and vindictive as Trump and his toadies are.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @5.1    3 weeks ago
Actually, plenty of people are honest enough to tell the truth, whether or not they dislike someone.

Yeah.  Especially those trying to hustle a book and make a financial killing doing so.  //S//

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @5.1    3 weeks ago
Actually, plenty of people are honest enough to tell the truth, whether or not they dislike someone. The Trump administration's constant lies, lack of ethics, and constant attacks on any

It's fun to watch people who've spent three years lying about an imaginary Russian conspiracy and tearing our country apart over nothing claim others aren't honest.  History will not be kind to Adam Schiff and his enablers for what they've done. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

It's fun to watch people who've spent three years lying about an imaginary Russian conspiracy and tearing our country apart over nothing claim others aren't honest.  History will not be kind to Adam Schiff and his enablers for what they've done. 

You do know, Trumpp was a co conspirator to an indicted, jailed, individual, and was only not charged due to him being President, don't you ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

How many of tRump's associates - co-conspirators - have been indicted and jailed so far?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

I'm the wrong one to ask for stats, but i believe it was thirty four or so, and up to 199 total, as i'm not sure how they quantitate the Russian companies charged. 

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.6  katrix  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

And yet Trump's supporters ignore all the facts and repeat Trump's lies about it being a hoax. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be so willfully ignorant, but I guess if all you watch is Fox, the Trump State News channel, you aren't subjected to many facts.

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.7  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.1    3 weeks ago
Especially those trying to hustle a book and make a financial killing doing so. 

Or one trying to save his ass.  Solution?  Put them both under oath.

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.1.8  dennis smith  replied to  katrix @5.1    3 weeks ago

Most career politicians have not been honest and truthful or they would not be career politicians. The public views them as one of the lowest professions. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.1.9  dennis smith  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
Actually, plenty of people are honest enough to tell the truth, whether or not they dislike someone. The Trump administration's constant lies, lack of ethics, and constant attacks on anyone who doesn't suck up to Trump seem to have made some people forget that not everyone is as dishonest and vindictive as Trump and his toadies are.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  dennis smith @5.1.8    3 weeks ago

True dat

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  dennis smith @5.1.9    3 weeks ago

Actually, plenty of people are honest enough to tell the truth, whether or not they dislike someone. The Trump administration's constant lies, lack of ethics, and constant attacks on anyone who doesn't suck up to Trump seem to have made some people forget that not everyone is as dishonest and vindictive as Trump and his toadies are.

Agreed that most people are honest enough to tell the truth no matter how they feel about another person. 

Unfortunately that does not extend to today's politicians from either major party. That you cherry pick one politician only show your bias.

 
 
 
loki12
6  loki12    3 weeks ago

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.........................................The fucking retards in the house have got him this time, No!!!!! not like the other 30 times they had him for sure....they Really, really, really, really, REALLY!!!!! have him this time.   Every time I wonder how the Nigerian lotto scam, or the IRS will come arrest you if you don't send me money immediately scams manage to keep running year after year after year,  an article like this posts up and the light goes on, There are truly completely ignorant fucktards who will fall for the same thing over and over and over again.......I guess that is why we need a nanny state to a certain degree. some people are just too stupid to be left alone.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @6    3 weeks ago
There are truly completely ignorant fucktards who will fall for the same thing over and over and over again.......I guess that is why we need a nanny state to a certain degree. some people are just too stupid to be left alone.

Just because his cult like follwing refuses to put pressure on the GOP Senators, in NO WAY means Trumpp is not guilty, and if not potUS would be in jail with his old lawyer, but that doesn't resonate with some 'fucktards'.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.1  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1    3 weeks ago

Hahahahahahahahahaha 

 
 
 
It Is ME
8  It Is ME    3 weeks ago

"We have now   learned precisely what John Bolton is prepared to tell us   about President Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme."

There is ONLY two things we've learned from this.  Someone leaked this incomplete MEMO to a Newspaper, and Innuendo and Conjecture is STILL ALIVE ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/guess-who-was-charge-reviewing-boltons-leaked-book-nsc

"The identical twin brother of Democratic impeachment witness Alexander Vindman, Yevgeny Vindman, is reportedly in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former officials at the National Security Council (NSC)",), according to Breitbart News, which would include the recently leaked manuscript of former National Security adviser John Bolton.

The report describes the reviews as a "standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication."

Breitbart notes that the Vindman brothers have offices across from each other at the NSC, and that the Wall Street Journal describes Vindman as "an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues." Alexander Vindman, meanwhile, has said that his brother was the "lead ethics official" at the agency.

256

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alexander-vindman-army-officer-defying-white-house-testify/story?id=66610499

Vindman’s twin brother Yevgeny is also an Army lieutenant colonel rank who works in the White House as part of the National Security Council, according to the Times. He is a lawyer handling ethics issues, and his office is across from Vindman’s. 

Weird ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @8    3 weeks ago
Alexander Vindman, Yevgeny Vindman

Lol ..... to channel a left wing tactic ..... these two must be Ukrainian spies.   I think they report to the Tulsi Gabbard spy ring .....

The Americans ..... part 2  ..........

 
 
 
It Is ME
8.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

The "Brothers Grimm" Folklore

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Donald J. Trump fan 1
CB
The Magic Eight Ball
KatPen
JohnRussell
Dulay
loki12


48 visitors