Preview of Bolton's book

[MidwestIndy]

@Smyrna

@MidwestIndy

Last time

That’s right. Now you’re catching on…maybe?

Well that is a silly post without meaning.

Care to try door 2?

P.S. If i recall you lost a bet to me regarding political race predictions last time around. I wouldnt rest on my laurels if I were you.

[TommyLucchese]

@Ben_Natuf

the only bipartisan vote was against impeachment. obviously,

Lol. Obviously.

[Zander]

@DougBH

@PurpnGold

@DougBH

Obviously the proper route was for House Dems to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is what happened with Holder. Has Holder been charged with (the nonexistent crime of) obstruction of Congress?

Did Obama direct him not to testify or provide documents?

You think he was acting against Obama’s will? Oh please.

Hm, do you have any first hand witnesses? Or is this just circumstantial assumption?

[AmusedObserver]

@WorldWatcher

@Smyrna

When using the word “majority”, the indication being sold is that this is what most want? That isn’t true.

The impeachment vote in the House was 230 Yes, 197 No, 1 Present, and 3 Not Voting that’s 431 total. Divide 431 by 2 and you get 215.5.

230 > 215.5 so yes. The vote to impeach was what most of the House wanted (i.e. a majority).

Also, on December 18th when the House voted more American’s supported impeaching Trump then opposed.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

These actual facts have no place in a conspiracy bubble.

[bigtwnvin]

I did say the Dims were partisan, yes. I failed to mention Speaker of the House Pelosi touted the impeachment vote to be “bipartisan” at the onset of her debacle.
Went over well with House members doncha think?

[kingarthur65]

@Zander

@DougBH

@PurpnGold

@DougBH

Obviously the proper route was for House Dems to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is what happened with Holder. Has Holder been charged with (the nonexistent crime of) obstruction of Congress?

Did Obama direct him not to testify or provide documents?

You think he was acting against Obama’s will? Oh please.

Hm, do you have any first hand witnesses? Or is this just circumstantial assumption?

Holder negotiated with Congress on the production of documents and he testified before Congress. Documents were provided in drips and drabs and both sides fought over what could or should be provided. That is how this process usually works and why the process takes so long. Trump decided not to do that, he simply said no documents, no witnesses. You can’t get a more clear example of obstruction.

[DougBH]

@Zander

@DougBH

@PurpnGold

@DougBH

Obviously the proper route was for House Dems to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is what happened with Holder. Has Holder been charged with (the nonexistent crime of) obstruction of Congress?

Did Obama direct him not to testify or provide documents?

You think he was acting against Obama’s will? Oh please.

Hm, do you have any first hand witnesses? Or is this just circumstantial assumption?

Attorneys General serve at the whim of the President. That fact is all the witness you need.

[DougBH]

@kingarthur65

@Zander

@DougBH

@PurpnGold

@DougBH

Obviously the proper route was for House Dems to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is what happened with Holder. Has Holder been charged with (the nonexistent crime of) obstruction of Congress?

Did Obama direct him not to testify or provide documents?

You think he was acting against Obama’s will? Oh please.

Hm, do you have any first hand witnesses? Or is this just circumstantial assumption?

Holder negotiated with Congress on the production of documents and he testified before Congress. Documents were provided in drips and drabs and both sides fought over what could or should be provided. That is how this process usually works and why the process takes so long. Trump decided not to do that, he simply said no documents, no witnesses. You can’t get a more clear example of obstruction.

Then it shouldn’t have taken long for the House Dems to get a ruling from the Supreme Court that the administrations theory was full of it, should it? That was the process to take.

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

Then it shouldn’t have taken long for the House Dems to get a ruling from the Supreme Court that the administrations theory was full of it, should it? That was the process to take.

McGahn.

[DougBH]

@Covfefe

@DougBH

Then it shouldn’t have taken long for the House Dems to get a ruling from the Supreme Court that the administrations theory was full of it, should it? That was the process to take.

McGahn.

Still, the courts decide issues of balance of power between the Congress and Executive. Congress doesn’t impeach at the first difference and the Executive doesn’t arrest them all. Its how its been done.

[WorldWatcher]

@DougBH

Then it shouldn’t have taken long for the House Dems to get a ruling from the Supreme Court that the administrations theory was full of it, should it? That was the process to take.

A process that the are following with McGahn and it’s already been 9 months and it’s currently sitting at appeal, let alone the next step which is appeal to the SCOTUS.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

Still, the courts decide issues of balance of power between the Congress and Executive. Congress doesn’t impeach at the first difference and the Executive doesn’t arrest them all. Its how its been done.

This is really simple. If we wait for the courts to decide about executive privilege we are essentially saying impeachment is only reserved for the first couple years of a president’s office. Otherwise a president can simply stonewall almost indefinitely- or at least until its too late to matter.

[kingarthur65]

@DougBH

@kingarthur65

@Zander

@DougBH

@PurpnGold

@DougBH

Obviously the proper route was for House Dems to go to the courts to enforce their subpoenas. That is what happened with Holder. Has Holder been charged with (the nonexistent crime of) obstruction of Congress?

Did Obama direct him not to testify or provide documents?

You think he was acting against Obama’s will? Oh please.

Hm, do you have any first hand witnesses? Or is this just circumstantial assumption?

Holder negotiated with Congress on the production of documents and he testified before Congress. Documents were provided in drips and drabs and both sides fought over what could or should be provided. That is how this process usually works and why the process takes so long. Trump decided not to do that, he simply said no documents, no witnesses. You can’t get a more clear example of obstruction.

Then it shouldn’t have taken long for the House Dems to get a ruling from the Supreme Court that the administrations theory was full of it, should it? That was the process to take.

What? How in the world do you come to that conclusion? It is completely opposite to the logical conclusion of what I stated.

[DougBH]

@Covfefe

@DougBH

Still, the courts decide issues of balance of power between the Congress and Executive. Congress doesn’t impeach at the first difference and the Executive doesn’t arrest them all. Its how its been done.

This is really simple. If we wait for the courts to decide about executive privilege we are essentially saying impeachment is only reserved for the first couple years of a president’s office. Otherwise a president can simply stonewall almost indefinitely- or at least until its too late to matter.

You get proof before you open an impeachment. You don’t tell the executive branch to hand over every document they have in hopes of finding something impeachable.
And if there is a question…you go to the courts.
Well, yes, it is really simple.

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

You get proof before you open an impeachment.

Nope. Just like a crime…you see something wrong (man robs bank, man kicks dog, etc.) Then you convene to see if corroborating evidence proves it (impeachment hearing) and then you take it to trial where witnesses are supposed to be heard as a way of deciding guilt or innocence.

At this point executive privilege is simply a corrupt card that denies the chance to explore corroborating evidence or talk to witnesses.

My proof- Don McGahn.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@bigtwnvin

I did say the Dims were partisan, yes.

According to Trump’s council, as long as its partisan because dems think them being in power is better for the public, it’s a okay !!

[DougBH]

@Covfefe

@DougBH

You get proof before you open an impeachment.

Nope. Just like a crime…you see something wrong (man robs bank, man kicks dog, etc.) Then you convene to see if corroborating evidence proves it (impeachment hearing) and then you take it to trial where witnesses are supposed to be heard as a way of deciding guilt or innocence.

At this point executive privilege is simply a corrupt card that denies the chance to explore corroborating evidence or talk to witnesses.

My proof- Don McGahn.

Supreme Court: " At this point executive privilege is simply a corrupt card that denies the chance to explore corro…etc."

Shouldn’t take long if that is true. Apparently your problem is with the legal system under the Constitution and you want to short circuit it. Your know…find a rope boys.

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

Shouldn’t take long if that is true. Apparently your problem is with the legal system under the Constitution and you want to short circuit it. Your know…find a rope boys.

Nope- its being abused.

Agree or not:

If Trump asserts executive privilege- its likely it will take at least to the election and likely beyond for the Supreme Court to reach a decision on the merits of the case.

[DougBH]

@Covfefe

@DougBH

Shouldn’t take long if that is true. Apparently your problem is with the legal system under the Constitution and you want to short circuit it. Your know…find a rope boys.

Nope- its being abused.

Agree or not:

If Trump asserts executive privilege- its likely it will take at least to the election and likely beyond for the Supreme Court to reach a decision on the merits of the case.

The court system takes too long. We’re taking action on our own!

[Covfefe]

@DougBH

The court system takes too long. We’re taking action on our own!

The abuse of the court system means we can’t question anyone from within Trump’s inner circle. Oh well- there is still a mountain of evidence and many other witnesses out there. Even if they are stonewalling, we need to take action because…

A president should not be allowed to use hundreds of millions of dollars of congressionally approved military aid to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political enemy to win a domestic election!