BREAKING: Bolton to Claim Trump Held Up Ukraine Military Aid Over Biden Investigations

It would seem quite easy to get to the bottom of this since Bolton has done everything but beg the Senate to subpeona him.

Just call him as a witness in the Senate trial. It's such an easy call. What are Republicans afraid of? Well, we know exactly what they're afraid of.

 

My post history would indicate that I am not. Not by a long shot.

Thanks for playing.

 

And how many do they need to get the Senate to receive new documents and Witnesses? Would it be four, dear Professor?

 

I'm not afraid of anything. He needs to be deposed. The defense's best defense is the ability to cross examine witnesses. In fact, I would tell Trump if I were his lawyer that I couldn't fairly represent him if I weren't allowed to cross examine witnesses.

Bolton's words cannot stand unchallenged. They have to be said under oath, and then we can discover if there's any discrepancy with the evidence or with known facts.

 

Nah. We good.

 

A very good question.

 

In that case, trump would be acquitted by 53 Republican Senators.

Unless trump killed a Republican Senator. Then it would only be 52 who voted to acquit him.

 

3 is sufficient.

 

Trump asserted absolute immunity, not executive privilege.

That assertion was most recently struck down, after being challenged by the House, in late November by Judge Jackson.

 

So this bombshell changes what? From 'Trump held aid to prevent it being squandered on corruption' to 'Trump held aid to prevent it being squandered on Biden corruption'?

That doesnt change much.

How is that more likely to convince senators that Trump needs to be removed from office?

 

Sure, totally plenty of examples. So many you cant think of one without thoroughly ignoring the actual reporting from the NYT or thoroughly ignoring the fact that NYT issued a correction.

 

Nah, we good. Enjoy the endless stream of revelations about your corrupt orange god.

 

He is also talking about the vote to let Bolton testify.

 

Enjoy Trumps re election and decades of his judicial picks.

 

Great point, MrT.

Sad, but TRUE.:smh:

 

Really Legal. Show us the document he filed asserting that.

Go ahead. We both know it doesn't exist don't we.

 

I'm sorry...you appear to be implying that the military aid in 2019 would somehow benefit Biden.

 

Thanks for expressing your feelings. Hope you feel better.

 

The Don McGahn court filing.

You do not file a document to assert absolute immunity. You do however need to actually appear and assert executive privilege in response to a specific question. Trump ordered all current and former employees to not even appear on the grounds that he can declare them absolutely immune from testifying.

Trump's own legal team - during the Senate Trial - has said multiple times that "Trump has not technically asserted executive privilege."

 

Prove it Legal. Show us the wording where he asserted it.

So you just admitted you have no document supporting what you claim Trump did.

Thanks for proving once again you can't back up your claims.

 

Why wouldn't it?

If Ukraine's govt-corpt structure operates any similarly to the US, then it would be very easy to shuffle aid to from govt to corpt and into his pockets. Happens all the time here...

 

One of the defenses posited by the Trump defense team, was that the Ukrainians weren't aware of the hold on aid, therefore they wouldn't have known about the blackmail.

Does that hold true in your opinion? Could you still charge blackmail/bribery, even if the person doesn't know that he's being bribed or blackmailed?

 

So what, you need to question Trump on his motivations.

 

...what?

Seriously, why do you think anyone is going to give any credence to the notion that Ukraine might direct military aid money to Joe Biden personally?

 

Please do now read me a quote about absolute immunity while arguing that it does not say absolute immunity.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/7827...n-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house