The two aren't inconsistent.
Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
The two aren't inconsistent.
What do you mean? Are you saying the posted interview of Bolton saying the call was cordial doesn't dispute what is supposedly in his book? And he waited to get fired. If he thought Trump actually committed a crime worthy of being removed from office, why did he wait until now after he was fired to mention it in a book?
Bolton just seems to me like the latest in the line of people whose feelings are hurt. Ironic since he acts like such a tough guy.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Utah is such an odd place
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
The whistleblower only dealt with the call. The call "transcript" was then released so there's no real question on the content of the call. What is in question is the how and the why before/after the call. Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. were in those meetings. Whistleblower was not.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I respect that Bolton seems to have responded appropriately. He advised staff to confer with White House Counsel and called what was going on a drug deal. He then disagreed enough with POTUS that he quit but was then fired. I say you let him quit so he can get unemployment. 
Those positives stated, his activities working on a book deal for his book referring to the room where it happened are sub-ethical.
Those positives stated, his activities working on a book deal for his book referring to the room where it happened are sub-ethical.
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
I spell it S-W-I-T-Z-E-R.
Cordial to me does not necessarily prove the absence of strong-arm tactics. I once had a dispute with a home builder that led to a meeting. It was very cordial. When it ended I said, "Don't mistake civil discourse for a lack of resolve."
The question about personality and tone is interesting. Is the Ukraine President a lapdog? Is he intimidated by the United States and/or Trump? Did he treat Trump cordially because he needed something from the United States and resolved to keep his cool no matter what?
You can imagine someone in need being open minded, relaxed about a request or flat-out being an ***-kisser. What difference did it make to the Ukraine President? I suppose if he were concerned about Biden's reaction he might have objected or called Trump out for the request. Did the Ukraine President even know that the aid had a time limit and that it was against the law for the President of the United States to prevent the aid from it's intended recipient? You would think so.
The transcript I read practically sounded like a bromance. Bolton's comment about cordiality indicates he was aware of the peaceful discussion. I didn't get the idea that the aid was placed in contingent status.
Maybe I missed something.
The question about personality and tone is interesting. Is the Ukraine President a lapdog? Is he intimidated by the United States and/or Trump? Did he treat Trump cordially because he needed something from the United States and resolved to keep his cool no matter what?
You can imagine someone in need being open minded, relaxed about a request or flat-out being an ***-kisser. What difference did it make to the Ukraine President? I suppose if he were concerned about Biden's reaction he might have objected or called Trump out for the request. Did the Ukraine President even know that the aid had a time limit and that it was against the law for the President of the United States to prevent the aid from it's intended recipient? You would think so.
The transcript I read practically sounded like a bromance. Bolton's comment about cordiality indicates he was aware of the peaceful discussion. I didn't get the idea that the aid was placed in contingent status.
Maybe I missed something.
Last edited:
better to consign the country to calamity than commit political suicide-----I think you have hit on the key here. Voters can't be trusted to see beyond Sunday's barbecue/Super Bowl party and so we are doomed.
This is why I am constantly condemning Bone Spur and the Dems and why I don't bother to encourage them by voting except for local offices where my vote might actually matter a little.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
What I'm saying is that one can say the call was cordial but still have concerns about it. If I smile while I'm saying I'm going to shoot you in the face, I'm being cordial. However, my statement obviously has serious problems.
The point is that we don't have the whole story - not from the book or from anywhere. We can't sit in judgment on it from here.
That may be true, but the whistleblower refers to people who are fact witnesses but fails to identify them. We have no idea who they are, whether they disagree with the transcript (which wasn't verbatim), or whether they were privy to anything beyond the call. In any legal proceeding, he would be considered an essential witness.
Democrats don't want him to testify for one reason only. They are afraid that he'll look like partisan dildo for Adam Schiff rather than a guy who was really concerned for national security.
You are the lawyer, not me. If you threatened to shoot me in the face, isn't that a clear crime? If Bolton had a concern Trump was committing a crime, shouldn't he have spoken up at the time?
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I think the word around the globe is that Trump loves *** kissing and likes to have his chode nozzled. It appears that is the norm. I mean his cabinet meetings play like a kim jong un cabinet meeting. Twenty years ago I would have called you a liar if you'd have told me we would be at this point. But, alas, here we are.
There's a lot of gray area between "concerns" and a crime. If we're just talking about bad judgment, then no, it's not Bolton's place to "speak up," except to tell Trump himself.
And there's nothing worse than a chode-nozzler.
But removal of the President should be for a crime, not a concern, correct?
That's a matter of opinion. Some say Yes, but most scholars say No. I say No. For me, it depends on the specifics. That's why I support witnesses and think the House did a ****** job. They never established or even meaningfully tried to establish any of the facts.
Don't you think Trump's lawyer had a good point that if witnesses are allowed now dictated by the House, it will set precedent for the House to do this every time it wants to?
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I think an abuse of power where the president uses the most powerful office in the world to personally benefit. For example, I think the obvious violations of the emoluments clause where lobbyists are staying at Trump properties is possibly not illegal but a serious ethical violation. That's enough for me.
Except neither you nor anyone else has proven that he did that. It is subjective at best. And now that Bolton was fired by Trump, as with every other fired person who the media and Dems hated when they worked for him, now he is to be believed if he impugns trump.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
He resigned. He has truly hired the best people. The list is long and not distinguished. We're left with Stephen Miller and we've not had a press briefing in almost a year.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Also, the parties in play were barred from cooperating. Mulvaney, Barr, Parnas, Rudy....They were all in the room when it happened - pun intended.
If it's directed by the House, then I would agree. However, it shouldn't be and isn't. Within the bounds of relevance, the House should be able to call witnesses, and the defense should be able to do so as well.
Right, just like Mack Brown and Switzer both resigned I'm sure. But you'll believe anything Bolton says now if it goes against Trump. If he says Trump was trying to squeeze Zelensly to take out Biden in 2020, and it is corroborated with other witnesses and evidence, then I will say trump needs to go.
Barry, if the emoluments clause stuff had any merit, don't you think the House would impeach over it? It's a much stronger case if it holds water.
Yes. The majority Democrat House called who it allowed and are now trying to dictate to the majority R Senate who to call. Seems like BS to me. As you say, the House should have called and then gone to the courts, etc., to get Bolton et al if they had evidence. It's just another coincidental leak claiming Bolton has evidence against trump.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
He brought his resignation letter to the oval. Trump told him to hold it and meet about it the next day. Then he announced that he was firing him over twitter that night. Typical chicken **** way he does thing. I mean all you need to do is watch one of those clown show rallies that haven't f'n stopped since 2015 and you see it.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
