Politics And Current Events

Postby **Beveridge** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:47 pm

If Bolton came in under Oath and said, sorry guys, I'm under Oath now, the truth is, in the conversations I heard, Trump didn't do what he is being accused of. I was just trying to sell books. The complete 180 of opinions today change regarding him. Ones who are calling him a to testify today, call him a liar that day, etc.

I'm in agreement with your premise.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:54 pm

If Bolton came in under Oath and said, sorry guys, I'm under Oath now, the truth is, in the conversations I heard, Trump didn't do what he is being accused of. I was just trying to sell books. The complete 180 of opinions today change regarding him. Ones who are calling him a to testify today, call him a liar that day, etc.

I'm in agreement with your premise.

Well, yeah, there is some stupid dance being performed by the Romney-Collins faction of the GOP and the impeachment cheerleaders.

It's all spectacle.

Postby **CBear3** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:56 pm

Right. I don't trust the guy farther than I can throw him. Appearing under oath will do one of two things, corroborate Hill's testimony re: the "drug deal" or refute it. If he refutes it we get into a he said /she said scenario. What that should do though is strengthen the call for documents, texts, notes, etc. to be subpoenaed.

Postby **CBear3** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:00 pm

But the same goes for Mulvaney. When people talk about Trump and his parallels to organized crime, this is it. You've got a bunch of "snakes" of varying undesireableness, and taking anybody's word for it who is in the White House is a stretch. That's why the sworn testimony for me isn't a great motivator, receipts are.

Postby **faftorial** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:07 pm

Here's my problem with all this. I don't know what happened. Gun to head I'm going to lean the direction of what was most likely said.

If a senator in this instance with a D or R attached to their name was for/against Bolton when he was in the White House, why should that change now?

Why should Dems or GOP basically flip their views on Bolton other than now he is saying something that helps/hurts my position?

Thinking Bolton is/was doing a shitty job and wanting him to testify are not at odds with each other.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:21 pm

Yes, that is where I net out on Bolton. Disagreeing with him on policy matters and finding him to be generally a bit of a dick does not mean I think he should be prevented from testifying, or that he's a less credible witness.

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:49 pm

Yes, that is where I net out on Bolton. Disagreeing with him on policy matters and finding him to be generally a bit of a dick does not mean I think he should be prevented from testifying, or that he's a less credible witness.

Let him testify. But he isn’t that credible. The guy has manipulated **** all the time to try and go to war or kill people.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:51 pm

Is he an invalid? Hearing problems? Why would he not be a credible witness?

Postby **willeyeam** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:51 pm

nice now onto discredit John Bolton phase of defending the pathological liar

nobody right on cue

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:59 pm

Is he an invalid? Hearing problems? Why would he not be a credible witness?

Because he has proven time and again that he is self-serving. I certainly trust him more than Trump, but the way he is being touted as this bombshell, especially when he has a book coming out (need those sales), casts doubt.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:09 pm

Time and again he has not been under oath.

I have no idea what he will say if it comes to that, if he'll be exculpatory or damning. But there's no really compelling reason why he should not be subject to examination.

Postby **Viva la Ben** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:43 pm

The trump lawyers seem like they are purposefully conflating legality of an impeachment trial vs a criminal trial.

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:44 pm

Time and again he has not been under oath.

I have no idea what he will say if it comes to that, if he'll be exculpatory or damning. But there's no really compelling reason why he should not be subject to examination.

I agree that he should testify.

Postby **Pavel Bure** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:48 pm

The trump lawyers seem like they are purposefully conflating legality of an impeachment trial vs a criminal trial.

I agree. It also seems that they’re still on outting the whistle blower.

Postby **Pavel Bure** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:50 pm

Also arguing that new evidence shouldn’t be introduced... uhhhh an hour long recording of Trump discussing his Ukraine policy and direct witness account from a former gov official have come out.

Is this real life?

Postby **grunthy** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:58 pm

Also arguing that new evidence shouldn’t be introduced... uhhhh an hour long recording of Trump discussing his Ukraine policy and direct witness account from a former gov official have come out.

Is this real life?

Why would they want new evidence introduced? Why would them not wanting it be surprising?

Postby **Pavel Bure** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:01 pm

Also arguing that new evidence shouldn’t be introduced... uhhhh an hour long recording of Trump discussing his Ukraine policy and direct witness account from a former gov official have come out.

Is this real life?
Why would they want new evidence introduced? Why would them not wanting it be surprising?

The huge balls of moving forward with that argument is staggering.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:13 pm

The argument from the start has been "**** you libtards, USA! USA! USA!", and the idiot mainstream press clinging to morsels of potential good faith in the **** you libtards argument, which then allowed something as obvious as John Bolton asserting that the sky is blue and his mustache is in fact the **** to become this inflection point. So now you have the parade of dipshits being like "oh man, gonna be hard for the GOP to contend with this set of facts". And for them to just come back with more "**** you libtard", and the press going back to be like, oh well maybe this Bolton revelation isn't quite as meaningful as it once seemed.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:45 pm

I have actually only watched about ten total minutes of the House Managers' presentations. Today is the first I tuned in to hear any of the defense: When the station finished loading/buffering, the first words I heard were "Hunter Biden and Burisma", and then the woman (is that Bondi?) falsely claimed voting to convict required proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. How fun.

Postby **Pavel Bure** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:19 pm

What is all this Hunter Biden nonsense? I thought Trump didn’t ask them to investigate the Bidens or Burisma? So are Trump’s guys saying he did ask for that and that it wasn’t for personal gain? Then why didn’t Trump ask in his first or second year in office? How is this farce being argued?

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:29 pm

One vector of the defense appears to be "he totally did this thing, but it was in his official capacity as President, and therefore not impeachable".

Biden was the only investigation he called for. So apparently he feels the corruption is so bad that it's kosher to bring the power of the U.S. government down on two U.S. citizens - one of whom is the most recent Vice-president - and them alone.

Postby **Pavel Bure** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:32 pm

What the **** is this argument? So much about Biden. Then claiming the President is aware enough to not make corrupt statements yet we all heard Trump in a dinner meeting being completely unaware.

Postby **Pavel Bure** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:36 pm

And now Obama? Da fuq

Postby **Pavel Bure** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 5:48 pm

Soooo Trump didn’t bring up investigating the Bidens before because he knew the corrupt leadership in Ukraine wouldn’t listen? Yet released funds to them without question. Then he was so happy that an anti-corruption guy got in that he felt he could now ask for investigations and just to be sure these new peeps were good guys he withheld aide.

Wouldn’t it have made sense to withhold aide from the corrupt government to put pressure on them? This is Chewbaca level defense.

Postby **faftorial** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:05 pm

If they do get witnesses with GOP support that will be an epic Trump twitter meltdown.