“The ambassador transmitted a hard-copy draft of his manuscript to the White House for pre-publication review by the National Security Council,” she said in an telephone interview.
“The ambassador has not passed the manuscript to anyone else, only the NSC.”
(01-27-2020, 09:23 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 09:06 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Another perfectly-timed smear!!!
"Some anonymous person" has leaked information allegedly contained in an unpublished John Bolton book manuscript.
Guess what? This anonymous leaker says Bolton wrote that Trump was tying Ukranian aid to the Biden investigation!
Now the Senate MUST vote for witnesses or they are AGENTS OF PUTIN!
Take it back to the house and interview him there.
I thought the House process was hopelessly biased and not letting Republicans speak... I also thought they weren't allowed to talk to him because Trump said so.
Something changed?
(01-27-2020, 09:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 09:23 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Take it back to the house and interview him there.
I thought the House process was hopelessly biased and not letting Republicans speak... I also thought they weren't allowed to talk to him because Trump said so.
Something changed?
They didn't do their jobs. They didn't try to do their jobs. They had to rush this thing through in order to lock down Liz and Bernie during the Iowa caucus.
(01-27-2020, 09:05 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 08:36 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]U could try responding to individual posters.
Or y could just ignore them and keep spouting maddow. Ur choice bruh.
Any of you could answer my two questions. Even if only one person answered, that would clarify things for me.
And I have never once watched Rachel maddow's show.
I've been trying to spoon feed u for months now. U can lead a progressive to water....
Does anyone think Billy Bob in fly-over country cares about the nuances of the timing of aid to a crap hole country?
They're going to do witnesses. Romney Collins etc. They're not strong enough to stand up and say what this is: a farce. The Republicans lost tactically the minute they didnt stand up and get 51 votes to summary dismiss the charges. By treating it like a serious impeachment they grant legitimacy. That let's the dems come up with all these pseudo-events to make it look like theres new evidence, "we got tapes of the president bad mouthing the ambassador..... john Bolton super patriot." There will always be enough Jeff flakes to bend to the media narrative. This thing could stretch 4 to 5 more months, and that's exactly what they want. This isn't about removal,, it's about more tax payer funded opposition research.
(01-27-2020, 10:20 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]They're going to do witnesses. Romney Collins etc. They're not strong enough to stand up and say what this is: a farce. The Republicans lost tactically the minute they didnt stand up and get 51 votes to summary dismiss the charges. By treating it like a serious impeachment they grant legitimacy. That let's the dems come up with all these pseudo-events to make it look like theres new evidence, "we got tapes of the president bad mouthing the ambassador..... john Bolton super patriot." There will always be enough Jeff flakes to bend to the media narrative. This thing could stretch 4 to 5 more months, and that's exactly what they want. This isn't about removal,, it's about more tax payer funded opposition research.
They were too worried about protecting "vulnerable" Senate Republicans. I still have faith in Cocaine Mitch.
This is setting such a dangerous precedent for the future.
(01-27-2020, 10:27 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 10:20 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]They're going to do witnesses. Romney Collins etc. They're not strong enough to stand up and say what this is: a farce. The Republicans lost tactically the minute they didnt stand up and get 51 votes to summary dismiss the charges. By treating it like a serious impeachment they grant legitimacy. That let's the dems come up with all these pseudo-events to make it look like theres new evidence, "we got tapes of the president bad mouthing the ambassador..... john Bolton super patriot." There will always be enough Jeff flakes to bend to the media narrative. This thing could stretch 4 to 5 more months, and that's exactly what they want. This isn't about removal,, it's about more tax payer funded opposition research.
They were too worried about protecting "vulnerable" Senate Republicans. I still have faith in Cocaine Mitch.
This is setting such a dangerous precedent for the future.
I have a good deal of confidence in him but he needs 51 votes. Romney Collins mccowski and Alexander have a little rino caucus that could push this to testimony.
I hope we dont fold but we always have. Comey leaks two sentences of a memo, we agree to special counsel. Blasey Ford lies on television, supplemental fbi inquiry. Whistleblower lies about a phone call, we impeach the +/$=king president despite an exculpatory transcript. Now we have tapes leaking from 2 years ago about a president criticizing an ambassador he has every right to fire and Boltons book being leaked. I have no faith in the ffg lake wing if the party to hold their water.
(01-27-2020, 07:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what you guys are trying to say.
Do you think Trump's DoJ had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to investigate the Bidens?
Or do you think probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not required to start an investigation?
It is not required to start an investigation.
(01-27-2020, 11:35 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 07:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure what you guys are trying to say.
Do you think Trump's DoJ had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to investigate the Bidens?
Or do you think probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not required to start an investigation?
It is not required to start an investigation.
OK so when Comey started an investigation of candidate Trump, that was totally OK, right? Because you don't need reasonable suspicion to start an investigation, right?
(01-27-2020, 11:49 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 11:35 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]It is not required to start an investigation.
OK so when Comey started an investigation of candidate Trump, that was totally OK, right? Because you don't need reasonable suspicion to start an investigation, right?
Are we talking about what is OK or what is legal? You like to change your intent a lot, huh? Legally, Comey was allowed to open that investigation. He wasn’t, however, allowed to obtain surveillance warrants based on information he knew was incorrect and the myriad of other illegal decisions.
(01-27-2020, 12:02 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 11:49 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]OK so when Comey started an investigation of candidate Trump, that was totally OK, right? Because you don't need reasonable suspicion to start an investigation, right?
Are we talking about what is OK or what is legal? You like to change your intent a lot, huh? Legally, Comey was allowed to open that investigation. He wasn’t, however, allowed to obtain surveillance warrants based on information he knew was incorrect and the myriad of other illegal decisions.
Oh so surveillance has a higher burden of proof? Should Trump have sent some business associates to surveil our ambassador to Ukraine?
(01-27-2020, 10:27 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 10:20 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]They're going to do witnesses. Romney Collins etc. They're not strong enough to stand up and say what this is: a farce. The Republicans lost tactically the minute they didnt stand up and get 51 votes to summary dismiss the charges. By treating it like a serious impeachment they grant legitimacy. That let's the dems come up with all these pseudo-events to make it look like theres new evidence, "we got tapes of the president bad mouthing the ambassador..... john Bolton super patriot." There will always be enough Jeff flakes to bend to the media narrative. This thing could stretch 4 to 5 more months, and that's exactly what they want. This isn't about removal,, it's about more tax payer funded opposition research.
They were too worried about protecting "vulnerable" Senate Republicans. I still have faith in Cocaine Mitch.
This is setting such a dangerous precedent for the future.
At surface level, this looks like Bolton will be the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to allowing witnesses. However, I'd wager that every senator, democratic or republican, received a boatload of constituent calls, emails, office visits demanding witness testimony. I'd go so far as to bet the number of those types of requests far outweighed constituents requesting the opposite.
(01-27-2020, 01:04 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 10:27 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]They were too worried about protecting "vulnerable" Senate Republicans. I still have faith in Cocaine Mitch.
This is setting such a dangerous precedent for the future.
At surface level, this looks like Bolton will be the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to allowing witnesses. However, I'd wager that every senator, democratic or republican, received a boatload of constituent calls, emails, office visits demanding witness testimony. I'd go so far as to bet the number of those types of requests far outweighed constituents requesting the opposite.
Ok cool. Give me Biden (your choice) and you can have Bolton.
(01-27-2020, 01:06 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:04 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]At surface level, this looks like Bolton will be the straw that broke the camel's back with regard to allowing witnesses. However, I'd wager that every senator, democratic or republican, received a boatload of constituent calls, emails, office visits demanding witness testimony. I'd go so far as to bet the number of those types of requests far outweighed constituents requesting the opposite.
Ok cool. Give me Biden (your choice) and you can have Bolton.
I don't care. Call witnesses. Impeachments are serious and should be afforded what information is available so that informed decisions can be made, regardless of political affiliation. That's been my perspective all along.
Who I'd like to see provide witness testimony:
Trump
Pompeo
Parnas
Bolton
Mulvaney
Giuliani
Perry
Kerry
Holder
Biden
Whistleblower
(01-27-2020, 01:12 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:06 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok cool. Give me Biden (your choice) and you can have Bolton.
I don't care. Call witnesses. Impeachments are serious and should be afforded what information is available so that informed decisions can be made, regardless of political affiliation. That's been my perspective all along.
Who I'd like to see provide witness testimony:
Trump
Pompeo
Parnas
Bolton
Mulvaney
Giuliani
Perry
Kerry
Holder
Biden
Whistleblower
Most impeachments are serious. This one is not. In fact, this is one of the biggest jokes our country has ever known. If this was so "serious" as you call it, why was the House in such a rush to get this over with and passed on to the Senate (after withholding the articlesfor a month)?
(01-27-2020, 01:16 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:12 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care. Call witnesses. Impeachments are serious and should be afforded what information is available so that informed decisions can be made, regardless of political affiliation. That's been my perspective all along.
Who I'd like to see provide witness testimony:
Trump
Pompeo
Parnas
Bolton
Mulvaney
Giuliani
Perry
Kerry
Holder
Biden
Whistleblower
Most impeachments are serious. This one is not. In fact, this is one of the biggest jokes our country has ever known. If this was so "serious" as you call it, why was the House in such a rush to get this over with and passed on to the Senate (after withholding the articlesfor a month)?
I have zero problems with it going back to the House and witnesses/docs aren't blocked by the WH.
I view impeachments as serious...this one has been a bipartisan bad show all around.
(01-27-2020, 01:30 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:16 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Most impeachments are serious. This one is not. In fact, this is one of the biggest jokes our country has ever known. If this was so "serious" as you call it, why was the House in such a rush to get this over with and passed on to the Senate (after withholding the articlesfor a month)?
I have zero problems with it going back to the House and witnesses/docs aren't blocked by the WH. I view impeachments as serious...this one has been a bipartisan bad show all around.
Bipartisan? It had zero GOP support in the house and even had some Dems vote against it. This is about as partisan as you can get.
(01-27-2020, 01:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-27-2020, 01:30 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I have zero problems with it going back to the House and witnesses/docs aren't blocked by the WH. I view impeachments as serious...this one has been a bipartisan bad show all around.
Bipartisan? It had zero GOP support in the house and even had some Dems vote against it. This is about as partisan as you can get.
Dude, you can choose to look at things through a red lens or not. I like Lewis Black, if that adds anything to how I'm perceiving this administration and Congress in general.
This hasn't looked good for republicans or democrats alike - hence the context behind my "bipartisan bad show"