He wasn't saying anything about a (debunked) quid pro quo until long after he was a disgruntled ex employee with time to simmer and a book deal in the works.
For bonus video of Schiff attacking Bolton's credibility as a lying "conspiracy" theorist is included.
The only thing Bolton cares about is engaging in more wars and regime change. In order to do his thing, he needs someone like Bush in the White House. He thought he had it with Trump (including at the time of the call). He was wrong.
If Bolton's "Bush" cheats his way to re-election, Bolton is going to support the cheating so Bolton can continue his reign of regime change. If "Bush" decides he doesn't want to be a "Bush" and kicks Bolton out for being a warmonger, Bolton is going to fess up that "Bush" tried to cheat.
Senator Obama! With dark hair.
Only an idiot would believe Bolton's book now! Best part of article:
Separately, Fox News has identified clips of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., now the lead House impeachment manager, in which he says Bolton had a distinct "lack of credibility" and was prone to "conspiracy theories." This week, Schiff said Bolton needed to testify in the impeachment trial as an important and believable witness.
"This is someone who's likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories," Schiff told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on March 22, 2018, when Trump named Bolton national security adviser.
"And I'll, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration," he said. "So, you add that kind of thinking to [former U.S. attorney] Joe diGenova and you have another big dose of unreality in the White House."
They’re all liars , and sadly the worst one is our president .
Bolton’s comments were corroborated by many witnesses in the shenanigans.
We really should hear him under oath
What comments? All you have is some vague insinuation by the NY Times that wouldn't refute the established facts or law anyway. No, time to end this partisan farce on the same evidence that House Democrats claimed was enough to decide the question of impeachment on. If it's good enough for the House impeachment then it should be good enough for the Senate trial.
The opposite of the truth across the board. Democrats called at least 17 witnesses while Trump didn't get to call any. Democrats still failed to build a case and were blown out of the water. The whole "impeachment" was a partisan sham.
Democrats launched a "coup" attempt (Zaid's own boastful wording) that wasted the country's time and money for three years. It failed. Whatever good things have been accomplished actually benefiting Americans' lives were by Trump despite Democrats.
Through this process the American people have responded by Trump's polls improving (currently around his all time highs), his fundraising surging to record shattering levels, and Democrats already losing one House seat as a member switched parties. I don't make result predictions on things like this, but Democrats' anti-American treason, their attempt to steal two elections by non-stop lying for three years, will definitely not be forgotten come November.
Making what up? I just said that even if the claim is true, that Trump privately told Bolton he'd "prefer" (the NY Times' word) that they launch an investigation before getting the aid, it wouldn't change the fact that that's not what Trump actually did. He didn't tell the Ukrainians about it (so no quid pro quo) and the aid flowed with no investigation.
The NY Times piece was a desperate last ditch attempt to sucker the Senate into a fishing expedition, but it's not materially relevant given all the mountains of witness and other evidence already on the record.
Just admit Trump withheld aid to pressure a foreign government to launch an investigation into the Bidens. This is not in dispute. Even Trump's defense knows this. That's why they are not defending this fact. They are saying what he did isn't impeachable.
Are you mentally ill? I just rebuked and mocked for you embarrassing yourself with that ignorant claim on another thread yesterday. Most of the Trump defense was spent refuting the Democrats on the facts. The entire first day defense presentation was correcting Schiff's show on the facts. The aid was paused for multiple reasons, including an assessment of overall corruption and seeing if they could push other nations into upping their contributions (burden sharing).
And they're saying the Democrats' charges aren't constitutionally impeachable even if they were true (which they're not). Not mutually exclusive.
Opinions vary, but you were objectively wrong to claim that they weren't even denying the charges. That's what they spent most of their time (effectively) doing.
Are you saying Trump's lawyers are witnesses? Really?
Huh? Again, logic can be your friend if you let it.
reply share