OldAg89er said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Exactly. Zero direct evidence. The whole thing is based on circumstantial evidence. So let's hear from the people that actually have that direct evidence.

What is the risk? If nothing was done improperly then they will corroborate it.

---

Where is the evidence from the House? Nothing burger. The House didnt even allege a crime was committed. In fact, they said no crime has to be committed to impeach the President. Constitution says otherwise, "High crimes and misdemeanors".

This is about the Democrats abusing their power of impeachment to interfere with the 2020 Election.

Schiff, Nadler, et all should be prosecuted.

---

Schiff, Nadler, et all should be prosecuted for abuse of power because they are trying to charge Trump with something that isn't a crime....abuse of power?

Doubtful. Since they (Congress) writes the laws, I'm not sure they'd draft something that could be used against themselves.

oldag941 said:

---

Pretending to be a Trump supporter? I voted for him. Guess that's not support enough? Ok. As many on this board do, resort to Ad Hominem. Be creative in discussion.

---

You realize that in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, right? I find it odd that a Trump supporter would presume him guilty with zero evidence of such. The dims have offered nothing but assumptions and theories. It isn't a defendant's responsibility to prove he's innocent.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OldAg89er said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Exactly. Zero direct evidence. The whole thing is based on circumstantial evidence. So let's hear from the people that actually have that direct evidence.

What is the risk? If nothing was done improperly then they will corroborate it.

---

Where is the evidence from the House? Nothing burger. The House didnt even allege a crime was committed. In fact, they said no crime has to be committed to impeach the President. Constitution says otherwise, "High crimes and misdemeanors".

This is about the Democrats abusing their power of impeachment to interfere with the 2020 Election.

Schiff, Nadler, et all should be prosecuted.

---

Schiff, Nadler, et all should be prosecuted for abuse of power because they are trying to charge Trump with something that isn't a crime....abuse of power?

---

how is that any different than what they have been doing to him since before he took office?

EskimoJoe said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

OldAg89er said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Exactly. Zero direct evidence. The whole thing is based on circumstantial evidence. So let's hear from the people that actually have that direct evidence.

What is the risk? If nothing was done improperly then they will corroborate it.

---

Where is the evidence from the House? Nothing burger. The House didnt even allege a crime was committed. In fact, they said no crime has to be committed to impeach the President. Constitution says otherwise, "High crimes and misdemeanors".

This is about the Democrats abusing their power of impeachment to interfere with the 2020 Election.

Schiff, Nadler, et all should be prosecuted.

---

Schiff, Nadler, et all should be prosecuted for abuse of power because they are trying to charge Trump with something that isn't a crime....abuse of power?

---

how is that any different than what they have been doing to him since before he took office?

---

It's a paradox

I understand that. But the process has been allowed to go so far that he's now backed into a corner where the perception is that if they don't provide a heck of a defense then there is some "guilt" there. The next two days will show how well they defend the POTUS. If it isn't methodical and aims at each of the Dems claims they laid out, I'm not sure the average joe will adopt the defense. Heck, the average joe probably doesn't care at this point.

OldAg89er said:

---

oldag941 said:

---

Exactly. Zero direct evidence. The whole thing is based on circumstantial evidence. So let's hear from the people that actually have that direct evidence.

What is the risk? If nothing was done improperly then they will corroborate it.

---

Where is the evidence from the House? Nothing burger. The House didnt even allege a crime was committed. In fact, they said no crime has to be committed to impeach the President. Constitution says otherwise, "High crimes and misdemeanors".

This is about the Democrats abusing their power of impeachment to interfere with the 2020 Election.

Schiff, Nadler, et all should be prosecuted.

---

Yep. Yet likely, nothing. And, They'll just do it again. Quite likely just as soon as DJT is reelected.

I doubt it. This is their last hurrah. There is no way their leadership nor constituents (as crazy as they are) would have the stomach to go at this again unless there was a blatant and obvious constitutional infringement...aka a definitive crime.

This is so weird. Bolton's manuscript is sent to the White House for review, and the NYT gets their hands on it.

In it confirms everything Vindman said. And Mulvaney. And Giuliani And Sondland. And Parnas. And the whistleblower. And Trump himself...

It's almost like there's no doubt at this point that each of these witnesses have corroborated this wrongdoing multiple times over.

Democrats must have known about the manuscript and that the WH had reviewed it. Explaining why they demanded Cippiloni disclose any relevant information. He risks disbarment if he misrepresented any facts knowingly.

We dont know whats in the manuscript

oldag941 said:

---

I doubt it. This is their last hurrah. There is no way their leadership nor constituents (as crazy as they are) would have the stomach to go at this again unless there was a blatant and obvious constitutional infringement...aka a definitive crime.

---

Yep, throwing the Hail Mary pass at this point, their only problem is that they are still 100 yards in the parking lot and the goal line for a TD is 250 yards away... fat Nadler can't throw 20 feet much less 250 yards

oldag941 said:

---

I doubt it. This is their last hurrah. There is no way their leadership nor constituents (as crazy as they are) would have the stomach to go at this again unless there was a blatant and obvious constitutional infringement...aka a definitive crime.

---

You seriously believe that? You just topped yourself.

oldag941 said:

---

Doubtful. Since they (Congress) writes the laws, I'm not sure they'd draft something that could be used against themselves.

---

True. Was hoping the Founders had thought of it, and put in the Constitution....

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

mazzag said:

---

---

Reread this.

Bolton shared his book draft with the NSC. Someone leaked a paraphrased version of what they read to NYT. The leaker said, "this isn't exactly how it was written by Bolton..maybe not even the same ballpark". The NYT said, "Meh. Close enough, we're going to make it say what we want...we can fix it later."

---

Pretty much and should be EOT.

oldag941 said:

---

I understand that. But the process has been allowed to go so far that he's now backed into a corner where the perception is that if they don't provide a heck of a defense then there is some "guilt" there. The next two days will show how well they defend the POTUS. If it isn't methodical and aims at each of the Dems claims they laid out, I'm not sure the average joe will adopt the defense. Heck, the average joe probably doesn't care at this point.

---

Sounds like you don't really believe in our principles of justice. Communists don't, either.

oldag941 said:

---

I doubt it. This is their last hurrah. There is no way their leadership nor constituents (as crazy as they are) would have the stomach to go at this again unless there was a blatant and obvious constitutional infringement...aka a definitive crime.

---

If the Dems retain the House, they will absolutely pursue another impeachment angle. They're openly hinting at such. Their delusion can't be underestimated. Dip****s like Schiff and Nadler shouldn't be loose on the streets. Institutionalized is where they belong. Dead serious.

They had to drag Pelosi kicking and screaming over the start line on this. And this is a weak case. She likes power too much to risk that again on anything less than obvious and a slam dunk.

LOL ..... how many times does the NYTimes need to get burned before sourcing a story??!! Doesn't matter to them if they 'gonna get Trump this time' .....

oldag941 said:

---

I understand that. But the process has been allowed to go so far that he's now backed into a corner where the perception is that if they don't provide a heck of a defense then there is some "guilt" there. The next two days will show how well they defend the POTUS. If it isn't methodical and aims at each of the Dems claims they laid out, I'm not sure the average joe will adopt the defense. Heck, the average joe probably doesn't care at this point.

---

You didn't watch Saturday did you?

daggertx said:

---

LOL ..... how many times does the NYTimes need to get burned before sourcing a story??!! Doesn't matter to them if they 'gonna get Trump this time' .....

---

They don't care. The headline is all that matters because they know there are enough fools who read that and only that and believe it.

Uhhh, they talked impeachment hours after election. It will NEVER go away with them. You can't see that?

mazzag said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

mazzag said:

---

---

Reread this.

Bolton shared his book draft with the NSC. Someone leaked a paraphrased version of what they read to NYT. The leaker said, "this isn't exactly how it was written by Bolton..maybe not even the same ballpark". The NYT said, "Meh. Close enough, we're going to make it say what we want...we can fix it later."

---

Pretty much and should be EOT.

---

They did it on purpose. The idea is to force Bolton to clarify since there's now "confusion".

oldag941 said:

---

I agree. You should be able to brainstorm with whoever and whenever. Preferably without it getting leaked (apparently impossible these days).

But you can't ask for a favor from another country that leads to personal benefit, especially in helping in a campaign for election. You shouldn't even get near that where the perception exists. Poor judgement no matter what the intent.

---

So quite me the exact lines in the transcript where he asked for a personal favor.

Weird that the same day this leak happens, the book is available for pre order.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/critics-hammer-bolton-after-book-pre-order-goes-live-following-leaked-manuscript-published-by-nyt

Okay, this just keeps getting better and better.

The person in charge at the NSC of reviewing material before it can be published is Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman.

His brother is, "oh say can you see," Alexander Vindman.

Anyone want to bet he is the leaker to the Slimes?

Rapier108 said:

---

daggertx said:

---

LOL ..... how many times does the NYTimes need to get burned before sourcing a story??!! Doesn't matter to them if they 'gonna get Trump this time' .....

---

They don't care. The headline is all that matters because they know there are enough fools who read that and only that and believe it.

---

oldag, a "Trump voter" is one. And he thinks the whole presumption of innocence should be done away with because it's inconvenient for dims this time.

Bolton's attorney released a statement seeming to confirm the NYT report is accurate, or at least not disputing it

Rapier108 said:

---

Okay, this just keeps getting better and better.

The person in charge at the NSC of reviewing material before it can be published is Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman.

His brother is, "oh say can you see," Alexander Vindman.

Anyone want to bet he is the leaker to the Slimes?

---

I think he needs to face federal charges.

Rapier108 said:

---

Okay, this just keeps getting better and better.

The person in charge at the NSC of reviewing material before it can be published is Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman.

His brother is, "oh say can you see," Alexander Vindman.

Anyone want to bet he is the leaker to the Slimes?

---

Holy crap. But it certainly fits with the need to fire all those various occupants and panels. The intel hierarchy has been a mess for a long time.

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Bolton's attorney released a statement seeming to confirm the NYT report is accurate, or at least not disputing it

---

That statement say no such thing.

Quit lying all of the time.

Story will be gone tomorrow Gary. Have fun tonight.

Bo Darville said:

---

John Maplethorpe said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

mazzag said:

---

---

If this is true, the Dems wouldn't want any part of Bolton as a witness.

---

It's weird they asked him to testify in the house then submitted a subpoena motion in the Senate. The vote was 47-53. All Ds voting for.

This is over. Trump is cooked.

---

There's a 0.0% chance he's removed and you think he's "cooked"?

---

Maplethorpe is just combining wishful thinking with his innate urge to Troll people of substance.

I like to Troll, too. People like maplethorpe

John Maplethorpe said:

---

Bolton's attorney released a statement seeming to confirm the NYT report is accurate, or at least not disputing it

---

It's been debunked. Next!




What a bunch of liars you fetch water for. How can you stand being wrong? On everything. Have you no pride?

John Maplethorpe said:

---

OldAg89er said:

---

As some one who once held a security clearance, it is astounding to me how many times a felony has been committed by a deep stater leaking classified information.

Every page, paragraph, and word in that document is classified and protected from disclosure by law until the NSC has made a formal determination about its contents.

The timing of the submission to the NSC and the leak of its supposed contents is just all too convenient. This is being orchestrated by the string masters of the deep state coup.

---

Bolton claims none of it is classified. Realistically it's information we already knew. Legally, because of his former position, it had to be reviewed before being published but the content may or may not be classified.

---

Bolton doesn't have the legal authority to determine if it is classified or not. That is why he must send it to the NSC for classification review. Until the NSC makes the call - the entire document is classified.

Not to mention the fact that some information could be confidential (e.g., Bolton is playing equivocation word games using "classified") and is not permitted to be released to the public as it is protected by executive privilege regulated to the President and the advice he receives during executive discussions.

This was a well planned, orchestrated in back rooms and basements, leak. Corrupt liberals plotted this event just as they did the constant drumbeat of Kavanaugh accusers- all of which turned out to be lying, and controlled by the Deep State.

Treason it is to plot to frame the President to overthrow him and remove him from office. Time to investigate the false accusors.