Opinion: We Must Have Witnesses.

[oeb11]

j666 and the Fascist DPST's care nothing about facts - only their "narrative truth" from Pelosi and Schumer.

[Jaxson66]

Sekulow calls Bolton revelations ‘inadmissible’

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow argued that the revelations from Bolton’s manuscript would not be admissible during a typical trial, dismissing their importance to the impeachment proceedings.

Sekulow read several statements denying Bolton’s allegation that Trump directly tied the withholding of military aid to Ukraine to investigations into his political rivals. The statements came from Trump, the Department of Justice and the chief of staff to Vice President Pence.

Sekulow then sought to emphasize what remains unknown about Bolton’s still-unpublished book, calling it “an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says.”

Sekulow continued: “I mean, that’s what the evidence — if you want to call that evidence — I don’t know what you’d call that — I’d call it inadmissible — but that’s what it is.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...FH4RK44KK5EFGM

The US Senate will make that call if they can find the courage....51 vote threshold.

Rumor is 5 Senators might, could possibly, and a definite maybe vote for witnesses. Let’s see how long that rumor lasts. ,

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by oeb11

j666 and the Fascist DPST's care nothing about facts - only their "narrative truth" from Pelosi and Schumer.

I wonder if they realize Bolton's book is inadmissible.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I wonder if they realize Bolton's book is inadmissible.

According to you and GaySuckalow it isn’t.

That’s why it’s not left to you or the appellate courts.

[Jackie S]

It was reported today that the Democrats say that they would just enter Bolton’s manuscript as evidence and not have to call Bolton as an actual witness.

How do you put a manuscript under oath?

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Bolton book roils Washington

Bolton, who left the White House in September — Trump said he was fired; Bolton said he resigned — did not respond to a question about whether he had used personal notes or official documents in his book.

The manuscript includes more than a dozen pages on Bolton’s interactions over Ukraine with Trump, his personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others, according to one person familiar with the project. In what this person called an “unflattering” portrait of the president, it also touches on other areas where Bolton is known to have disagreed with Trump policy decisions, including Venezuela and Turkey.

But another former senior official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, said Bolton “didn’t need to have” documents or his own notes from inside the White House, “since he probably went home every night and wrote about it.”

Viva La Bolton

Fascist DPST's - take a deep breath.

j666 - demanding "evidence" to convict trump ( which he has already done in his own mind on Nov, 2016) - The "Evidence" -
"The manuscript includes more than a dozen pages on Bolton’s interactions over Ukraine with Trump, his personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others, according to one person familiar with the project. In what this person called an “unflattering” portrait of the president, it also touches on other areas where Bolton is known to have disagreed with Trump policy decisions, including Venezuela and Turkey."


12 pages of an unpublished manuscript from a possibly disgruntled former employee.

"according to one person familiar with the project" - and a possibly 'unflattering' portrait of the President on topics of disagreement regarding foreign policy.

This what the poor Fascist DPST's are mightily grasping as a life jacket to save them from drowning in the seas of Acquittal of the faux house impeachment process.

The usual un-named "person familiar with" - source reference when no one outside of the NSC is known to have read the manuscript, or had Bolton speak on the topic of testimony on the matter.

Un-named, unknown, undocumented sources of material irrelevant to the submitted Articles of Impeachment. Typical Fascist DPST conjuring up "truth" out of thin air with no Facts whatsoever. Same as the House Impeachment committee process.

Does Trump disagreeing with Bolton over a policy matter constitute a high crime of misdemeanor???
Only in the eyes of Psychotic Fascist DPST's does that constitute a "Truth"!!!!
Same as disagreeing with what the opinion of Lt Col. Vindman - That is also an impeachable offense to the Fascist DPST's - disagreeing with a subordinate to the POTUS - and forgetting that the POTUS sets policy - NOT the Subordinates.



ftw, hh, j666, solemate, and the rest of the Fascist DPST ilk may now resort to name-calling and scatology, and questioning my age, as a response.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

According to you and GaySuckalow it isn’t.

That’s why it’s not left to you or the appellate courts.

Bolton's book won't change the facts. It just adds more confusion and disappointment to the Democrats. Besides anything in his Book can be argued as anecdotal.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by oeb11

j666 and the Fascist DPST's care nothing about facts - only their "narrative truth" from Pelosi and Schumer.

Support for witnesses in Senate trial at 75 percent: poll

A large majority of voters say the Senate should allow witnesses to testify during President Trump's impeachment trial, according to a poll from Quinnipiac University.

Of those surveyed, 75 percent said they think that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the trial. Along party lines, 49 percent of respondents who identified as Republicans said that they thought there should be witness testimony while 95 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents said the same.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...5-percent-poll

There’s you a fact to dwell on trumpy.

[oeb11]

The Hill is a far leftist Fascist DPST rag - their numbers are ridiculous.

we shall see after questions in the trial.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Urkraine (sic) has said the Bidens haven't broken any laws there.

Well gee, that settles it then!

The corruptors told us the corruptees are not corrupt!

Yeah, you should run with that one, munchy!

Now move along folks, t'aint nuttin' to see here...

Btw where's "Urkraine"? Can you find it on a map and circle it with your bright blue font crayon? Thanks!

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

What probable cause is there that hasn't been debunked?

I ain't a lawyer but I thought you need to show RELEVANCE in order to call witnesses, not probable cause. Or just point out how the dim-retard "Impeachment Managers" opened the door to putting them on the witness stand each time the words "Biden" or "Burisma" slipped out of their lying mouths.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Biden's threat to withhold loan guarantees (not even the same as Congress appropriated funds for an ally's defense money) was official policy.

Is it also official policy to let the scummy relatives of the Vice President of the United States enrich themselves through shameless influence peddling?

Inquiring minds want to know, munchy!

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by oeb11

The Hill is a far leftist Fascist DPST rag - their numbers are ridiculous.

we shall see after questions in the trial.

Did you have tears in your eyes while posting...it’s a Quinnipiac pol

I hope someone asks Suckalow...” why is your client such a fat lying bastard “

Viva La Shifty Schiff

[rexdutchman]

Its really becoming all the usual crap , believe us with no evidence just what we say .Bollie is trying to sell books , will not matter still no crimes

[Jaxson66]

Anatomy of a ‘smear’: How John Bolton became a target of the pro-Trump Internet

The headline drew little notice when it appeared last spring on a blog called “Disobedient Media.”

“John Bolton Took Money From Banks Tied To Cartels, Terrorists, Iran,” it read.

On Monday, the blog entry gained sudden popularity. That’s because its central claim — based only on innuendo and half-truths — proved useful to President Trump’s most fervent online supporters, who rushed to discredit the former United Nations ambassador and national security adviser as news broke that his forthcoming book would corroborate accounts that the president held up aid to Ukraine to advance investigations into his domestic political rivals.

The story quickly gained more than 5,000 interactions on Facebook — meaning shares, likes or other user actions — as it spread across pages and groups devoted to defending Trump. Soon, it became a building block of a campaign to discredit Bolton by impugning his motives and portraying him as a turncoat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e99_story.html

Those fucking Russians!

[oeb11]

Still addicted to the russia hoax - j666 and the fascist DPST's
And loves One who has made his name synonymous with "feces"!!!
Schiff thinks he is elevating himself to a POTUS position - in reality he may well be primaried out of his own district.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Its really becoming all the usual crap , believe us with no evidence just what we say .Bollie is trying to sell books , will not matter still no crimes

Correct. The Democrats have hated Bolton for a long time. I can't believe they actual think he's a hail Mary.