Bolton pegging Floridaman

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I have no illusions that you or Pete or wdmso or Spence will be swayed by anything I say or any video or article I post. I don't post anything for you, even if I respond to any post by you. I do it to give others who just tune in and rarely, if ever, join the conversation in order to give them a perspective other than yours.

The trial has started 3 days into the Trial the murder weapon has been found and ballistics match the weapon ...

Republicans think that because it wasnt found by the (House) prior to the Senate its not relevant

But somehow hunter Biden is

Again I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him... But I guess the American people and the historical record should be denied this new information from a 1st hand witness,,

And republicans beating the Drum of let the voters decide and overturning an election BS , Yet they dont want to present anything that may damage the POTUS how upstanding putting Trump before the Voters ..

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

btu:

Again I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him...

Please explain this gold.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Please explain this gold.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've been saying this from day one. doesn't mean I think he had a perfect call and did nothing wrong ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I've been saying this from day one. doesn't mean I think he had a perfect call and did nothing wrong ..

What he meant (I'm pretty sure), was that what you posted, implies that you are certain they will remove him.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What he meant (I'm pretty sure), was that what you posted, implies that you are certain they will remove him.

You won't find any post from me suggesting certainty of his removal

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You won't find any post from me suggesting certainty of his removal

Not intentionally. But when you typed this:

I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him

that means you think they will remove him. Too many negatives in there...he was teasing you, that's all...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not intentionally. But when you typed this:

I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him

that means you think they will remove him. Too many negatives in there...he was teasing you, that's all...

Typical Trumplican, mocking somebody with a disability (grammar?)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And republicans beating the Drum of let the voters decide and overturning an election BS , Yet they dont want to present anything that may damage the POTUS how upstanding putting Trump before the Voters ..

I'd like to see Bolton testify, no reason not to. The more facts we have, the better.

WDMSO, would you be OK with allowing Bolton to testify, if in return, we asked the Bidens to testify?

You're acting as if only Republicans want to hide the facts. The truth is, there are some Republican senators (Romney, Collins) who are open to the idea of letting Bolton testify. I haven't heard one single democrat say that we should also get to the bottom of what the Biden's were doing.

So which side wants the facts, and which side is covering up? It's not as one-sided as you are trying to portray it to be. Not even close.

Your side is interested in presenting all facts which will hurt Trump. They're not interested in much else.

Wayne, isn't it best if we know what Bolton has to say, AND we also know if Hunter used daddy's connections to get a cushy job? If not, just come out and say that you're only interested in facts that fit your agenda.

Hunter is a weirdo and a complete scumbag (what kind of a man is a millionaire, but only pays child support because a judge orders him to?). I'd like to know what he and daddy were doing there. Just as I'd like to know what Bolton has to say.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'd like to see Bolton testify, no reason not to. The more facts we have, the better.

WDMSO, would you be OK with allowing Bolton to testify, if in return, we asked the Bidens to testify?

You're acting as if only Republicans want to hide the facts. The truth is, there are some Republican senators (Romney, Collins) who are open to the idea of letting Bolton testify. I haven't heard one single democrat say that we should also get to the bottom of what the Biden's were doing.

So which side wants the facts, and which side is covering up? It's not as one-sided as you are trying to portray it to be. Not even close.

Your side is interested in presenting all facts which will hurt Trump. They're not interested in much else.

Wayne, isn't it best if we know what Bolton has to say, AND we also know if Hunter used daddy's connections to get a cushy job? If not, just come out and say that you're only interested in facts that fit your agenda.

Hunter is a weirdo and a complete scumbag (what kind of a man is a millionaire, but only pays child support because a judge orders him to?). I'd like to know what he and daddy were doing there. Just as I'd like to know what Bolton has to say.

Again you sound all reasonable then off the rails you go with the Bidens crap.. Hell , why not call capt crunch to testify

Ok here is your chance Tell us how Having biden testify Has any relevance to the 2 articles of impeachment currently being argued in the Senate in the president's defense

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again you sound all reasonable then off the rails you go with the Bidens crap.. Hell , why not call capt crunch to testify he as much 1st hand relevance to Trumps action in Ukraine as Biden does..

Supposedly, the Bidens' action in Ukraine was the main reason for the Trump actions that led to impeachment. If that is true, the Bidens would certainly have 1st hand relevance to Trump's action.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Supposedly, the Bidens' action in Ukraine was the main reason for the Trump actions that led to impeachment. If that is true, the Bidens would certainly have 1st hand relevance to Trump's action.

Supposedly being the key word, that crap cover story has already been blown up by testimony and now Bolton is about to force the senate into exactly what Moscow Mitch wanted so desperately to avoid; first hand witnesses. Kelly coming out in support of Bolton is going to further raise the stakes, might be Mitch is thinking gee how would a Pence presidency be.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Supposedly being the key word, that crap cover story has already been blown up by testimony and now Bolton is about to force the senate into exactly what Moscow Mitch wanted so desperately to avoid; first hand witnesses. Kelly coming out in support of Bolton is going to further raise the stakes, might be Mitch is thinking gee how would a Pence presidency be.

The supposition is that Trump only wanted something that would benefit him in the 2020 election.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again you sound all reasonable then off the rails you go with the Bidens crap.. Hell , why not call capt crunch to testify

Ok here is your chance Tell us how Having biden testify Has any relevance to the 2 articles of impeachment currently being argued in the Senate in the president's defense

having biden testify doesn’t directly support or refute the articles of
impeachment. so let’s have a separate investigation into Biden if you want it disconnected from impeachment.

My point is this...Donald Trump
is running for president, therefore i think it’s vital that the voters have all the information they can get, when deciding if they’re going to vote for him. If Bolton’s testimony sheds new light, we are better off having those facts. I assume
you agree.

Here’s where we part ways. Using the same exact logic I articulated above, were similarly better off knowing what, if anything, Joe Biden did in Ukraine.

I think it’s good to know the truth, regardless of party.

Obviously, you’re only interested in the truth that helps democrats.

Nothing you have ever posted, disputes that last sentence of mine. Try making that wrong. Or at least explain to us all, why seeking truth is only a noble undertaking, when it helps democrats or hurts republicans? Obviously that’s what you believe, so just tell us why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

having biden testify doesn’t directly support or refute the articles of
impeachment. so let’s have a separate investigation into Biden if you want it disconnected from impeachment.

My point is this...Donald Trump
is running for president, therefore i think it’s vital that the voters have all the information they can get, when deciding if they’re going to vote for him. If Bolton’s testimony sheds new light, we are better off having those facts. I assume
you agree.

Here’s where we part ways. Using the same exact logic I articulated above, were similarly better off knowing what, if anything, Joe Biden did in Ukraine.

I think it’s good to know the truth, regardless of party.

Obviously, you’re only interested in the truth that helps democrats.

Nothing you have ever posted, disputes that last sentence of mine. Try making that wrong. Or at least explain to us all, why seeking truth is only a noble undertaking, when it helps democrats or hurts republicans? Obviously that’s what you believe, so just tell us why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Truths hurt Democrats , what truths benefit Trump haven't heard any

I have no issues with a separate Biden investigation, based on evidence or probable cause , not just let's go fishing

You do know Bengiza was to discredit Clinton , prior to the election or did you miss that

Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What Truths hurt Democrats , what truths benefit Trump haven't heard any

That says it better than I ever, ever could. You don't operate in the real world, you exist in a hyper positive world, where literally,

liberal=good
conservative=bad

always, no exceptions.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The trial has started 3 days into the Trial the murder weapon has been found and ballistics match the weapon ...

Republicans think that because it wasnt found by the (House) prior to the Senate its not relevant

But somehow hunter Biden is

Again I have no illusions the Senate will not remove him... But I guess the American people and the historical record should be denied this new information from a 1st hand witness,,

And republicans beating the Drum of let the voters decide and overturning an election BS , Yet they dont want to present anything that may damage the POTUS how upstanding putting Trump before the Voters ..

There was no crime. Ukraine received the money . . . before the due date . . . there was no victim . . . there was no quo. Does Bolton's, excerpt dispute that?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There was no crime. Ukraine received the money . . . before the due date . . . there was no victim . . . there was no quo. Does Bolton's, excerpt dispute that?

The money was released once they got caught and they knew the scam was up.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The money was released once they got caught and they knew the scam was up.

That is pure speculation.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is pure speculation.

So many speculations in this case or coincidences I agree

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is pure speculation.

No, any reasonable person would recognize that when the Trump admin. saw other people now knew about the holdup and they then unfroze the $ w/in a day or 2 it was bc they got caught. I don't believe they ever gave any explanation for releasing the $.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, any reasonable person would recognize that when the Trump admin. saw other people now knew about the holdup and they then unfroze the $ w/in a day or 2 it was bc they got caught. I don't believe they ever gave any explanation for releasing the $.

The holdup was not a secret that needed to be "caught." It was not illegal. Whether you like it or not, or if you believe your version of a "reasonable" person would think it was a crime, that is irrelevant. Whether or not you or your "reasonable" person didn't think there was any reason to delay the money, that is irrelevant. Trump had concerns about corruption. It his state of mind, not yours nor your "reasonable" person's state of mind that matters.

Imposing your speculative narrative on Trumps action is not a valid reason to impeach him.

[Pete F.]

Rumor has it, that Friday after the vote if it does not call for witnesses, John Bolton will release what would have been his opening statement.

Because revenge is a dish best served cold.

And Bolton is very politically astute.

We will see, at the very least it would make great campaign material against Floridaman and the Trumplicans.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is pure speculation.

Easy way to cure what you call "speculation"

Release the documents, everything in government has a paper trail.

Let the witnesses testify, lots of career staff had their hands on this.

Obstruction works, until the light reaches the evidence.

You may like not like John Bolton’s principles, but he’s very principled. He’s also smart. And he just loves a good fight. He's not planning to lose.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Easy way to cure what you call "speculation"

Release the documents, everything in government has a paper trail.

Let the witnesses testify, lots of career staff had their hands on this.

Obstruction works, until the light reaches the evidence.

You may like not like John Bolton’s principles, but he’s very principled. He’s also smart. And he just loves a good fight. He's not planning to lose.

If it requires all of this, then impeachment should not happen without it. You don't impeach to get evidence. You impeach because you have it. And it should not happen because of speculation.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If it requires all of this, then impeachment should not happen without it. You don't impeach to get evidence. You impeach because you have it. And it should not happen because of speculation.

Plenty of evidence, boy the streets would be full of criminals and murders if they all needed to be caught with the bloody knife in the victims house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If it requires all of this, then impeachment should not happen without it. You don't impeach to get evidence. You impeach because you have it. And it should not happen because of speculation.

Congressional oversight is the duty of our elected representatives.
They requested the documents.
Floridaman refused to provide any.
Zero

But plenty will come out, most of it has been requested under FOIA and some has already been delivered.
It will all reach the light, a great deal of it prior to election day.