It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Bolton just trashed Democrats and their impeachment

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Only because his testimony would not have changed the makeup of the senate.
All the little puppets were always going to acquit no matter what and everybody knows it including Bolton.
There is a reason the white house is trying to quash the publication of the book and there was a reason why trump wanted to keep Bolton from testifying.
Lets not pretend anything else.
Or twist it to change what Bolton wrote about.




posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

So Bolton saying his testimony wouldn't have changed the the result...means what exactly?



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Speculative classified material (at the time) 😁😵


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
[You shouldn't tell people how to think.


That statement from a progressive, 10 points for delivering the knee slapper of the day!



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you believe the attack on Benghazi was about a movie nobody saw?



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

I don't think it's incumbent on the state to fairly or accurately relate the grievances or motives of terrorists to the public. I thought the Trump administration has made it pretty clear that they have no obligation to tell the truth to the American people or the press.

Even if Susan Rice lied about why the embassy was attacked, how does that amount to defrauding the American people?



edit on 20-2-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Only because his testimony would not have changed the makeup of the senate.
All the little puppets were always going to acquit no matter what and everybody knows it including Bolton.
There is a reason the white house is trying to quash the publication of the book and there was a reason why trump wanted to keep Bolton from testifying.
Lets not pretend anything else.
Or twist it to change what Bolton wrote about.


But you forgot to mention all the little puppets who voted to Impeach Trump when they lacked key evidence. Oh, I forgot, you don't understand any of this.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Lets not pretend anything else.


Anything else, huh? So you just want everyone to stop pretending immediately after you've been allowed to pretend you know what's going on inside the White House? Gatekeeping at it's worst right there.
10 points, the other knee has now been slapped.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Anyone who befriends, or uses Bolton as an ally, even just for a moment, deserves the egg on their face afterwards.

He's made both parties look like Fools.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist


Even if Susan Rice lied about why the embassy was attacked, how does that amount to defrauding the American people?



If ever a statement imbued the absolute ignorance of a "progressive" this is it.
SMFH



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Paid by taxpayer money to lie and advance a scheme. Pretty much covers defraud, does it not?



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Remember how Bolton was called to testify?

He didn't appear.

So, his testimony, that may have cleared Trump, wasn't given.

Trump was impeached.


The impeachment was partisan and predetermined before any hearings. No testimony would have stopped trump being impeached. It was inevitable since the midterms.


The purpose of the hearings was to hear testimony.

Perhaps if the testimony was heard, the impeachment would not have happened, because prior to the hearings, no one knew if any allegations were true or false. The investigations, which the hearings were a part of, were supposed to establish if there was wrongdoing.

Since the White House declined to attend, and instructed others also to not attend, it could not plead its case or explain the evidence.

edit on 20/2/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Trump was impeached.


Yeah, but he was also acquitted. Saying he was impeached is like going around and saying so and so was indicted when the trial is already over and they found them not guilty.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: chr0naut




Trump was impeached.


Yeah, but he was also acquitted. Saying he was impeached is like going around and saying so and so was indicted when the trial is already over and they found them not guilty.


But perhaps Trump would not have been impeached in the first place if he had mounted a defense?



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

One of the great things about this revelation is going onto twitter and reading all the retweets from liberal blue checkmarks being absolutely pwned for their OCD in painting Bolton as the new hero of the leftists agenda to impeach Trump BAMN.

The Karma they're receiving is glorious.


LOL



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

No. That's not what defraud means. If lying why being a government employee was defrauding the American people, Trump's whole administration would be guilty of defrauding the American people.



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



The purpose of the hearings was to hear testimony.

Perhaps if the testimony was heard, the impeachment would not have happened, because prior to the hearings, no one knew if any allegations were true or false. The investigations, which the hearings were a part of, were supposed to establish if there was wrongdoing.

Since the White House declined to attend, and instructed others also to not attend, it could not plead its case or explain the evidence.

This tweet sums it up.
Tweet


I find it interesting that the House Democrats were in such a hurry to impeach the President, yet were NOT willing to let courts rule on Executive Privilege issues,but now they want the Republican controlled Senate to do their jobs. I'm sorry but they screwed up. It's that simple.




The purpose of the hearings was to hear testimony

The whole scam by Schitt and pelosi was to obfuscate the process so the average low information Dem voter would believe the lies of the accusers.
The purpose of the Senate hearings was NOT to search for more evidence . The purpose of the Senate hearings was to evaluate the evidence put forth by the House and determine if that evidence was sufficient to remove the POTUS from office.
By law the house should have taken the time to get ALL the witnesses they needed to present a fool proof case against the President.
They did NOT do that, they could NOT do that. Their only choice was to obfuscate the facts and hope the ignorant public opinion would somehow save the day for their fact-less, witch hunt.

The whole point of the dems deception was the fact they KNOW they can't beat President Trump in 2020 and "By Any Means Necessary" they will try to prevent Trumps re-election.

So back to your statement, "The purpose of the hearings was to hear testimony.", NO. The purpose of the hearings was to evaluate evidence presented by the House. The House FAILED to present evidence to convict President Trump. PERIOD.


edit on 2 20 2020 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: chr0naut




Trump was impeached.


Yeah, but he was also acquitted. Saying he was impeached is like going around and saying so and so was indicted when the trial is already over and they found them not guilty.


But perhaps Trump would not have been impeached in the first place if he had mounted a defense?

Since you are not American perhaps your ignorance should be forgiven. Perhaps...

In America you are considered INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.
The dems job in the House was to present evidence that would convince a jury(The Senate), that beyond a reasonable doubt, POTUS Trump had committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The FULL BURDEN in the United States of America is to prove a crime WAS Committed, NOT that a crime was NOT committed.
It is not complicated people, unless you are trying to intentionally obfuscate the truth.
edit on 2 20 2020 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: chr0naut




Trump was impeached.


Yeah, but he was also acquitted. Saying he was impeached is like going around and saying so and so was indicted when the trial is already over and they found them not guilty.


But perhaps Trump would not have been impeached in the first place if he had mounted a defense?


That is about as accurate as saying perhaps Trump would have been removed from office if the prosecution had presented an actual impeachable offense to the Senate. This is part of the problem here and why I suspect that particular circus act was blessed and allowed to move forward... ultimately it changed nothing, both sides ended up with what they wanted out of the proceedings and the whole donkey show can be viewed 180-degree different depending on your biases. (I'm talking the outcome, not the actual case... the simple fact is the Dems failed to produce a case that an independent or moderate on either side would vote to convict on.)



posted on Feb, 20 2020 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: chr0naut




Trump was impeached.


Yeah, but he was also acquitted. Saying he was impeached is like going around and saying so and so was indicted when the trial is already over and they found them not guilty.


But perhaps Trump would not have been impeached in the first place if he had mounted a defense?


Schiff and Nadler wouldn't allow witnesses on Trump/Republican's list.

Besides, the impeachment was based on a lie drummed up by Schiff/Ciaramella/Vindman. That will be proven, and the impeachment will be nullified. That's my prediction.




top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join