Opinion: We Must Have Witnesses.

More from Tinsley, “Bolton spokeswoman says he did not leak his own manuscript to the NY Times — and had only submitted it for pre-review to the National Security Council.”


. Originally Posted by gnadfly

please call me lt. colonel vindman sir

It's a "Hail Mary" by the Dims. The timing is obvious. The source is obvious - the NYT.

They'll never be through with impeachment and claiming malfeasance by President Trump. If not this, something else.
In eight months, there will be an election.

Let the voters decide. That's the one thing the Dims don't want you to do. Don't fall for it Jackie S. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The publisher of Bolton’s book stated the book would be made public before the 2020 election months ago. Timing hasn’t a fucking thing to do with it.

It appears to me the NSC still has patriots on the payroll.

The witness list is ready from both sides, let’s hear them all.

agreed- joe and Hunter biden in particular.

j666

Biden is rubbing elbows with Ukraine in a criminal fashion. Trump has knowledge of this and thinks Biden should be investigated for possible corrupt business practices with Ukraine while he was Vice President. The Democrats think Biden deserves a pass because he is running for President, and Trump should be Impeached because uncovering anything criminal about Biden might help Trump get reelected. This whole thing is like a political version of the Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon.

agreed- joe and Hunter biden in particular.

j666 Originally Posted by oeb11

Let them take the stand, I ain’t scared.

Question is, who will the Senators allow if they allow any?

J666 - you missed your calling

You really should be Propaganda Minister for the DNC.

Parroting their narrative is a talent - done so well!

Opinion: We Must Have Witnesses. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The publisher of Bolton’s book stated the book would be made public before the 2020 election months ago. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

If this is coming out in Bolton's book, complete with lots of press coverage and a book tour, then maybe it makes sense from the perspective of Trump and those Republican senators up for re-election to get it out in the open now, instead of right before the election.

I don't know about the other witnesses. As to people like Mulvaney and Pompeo who are still in the administration, it's going to make sense to a lot of voters if they don't testify, whether that's a result of a decision of the Senate or legal action by Trump. Testimony by Hunter Biden, while perhaps irrelevant to the case at hand, would probably help Republicans. As to the two ex-Prosecutor Generals of the Ukraine, Shokin and Lutsenko, assuming they can get visas to testify, who knows whether they'd do more harm or good to Trump. Both are corrupt, and Lutsenko has effectively said he's for sale to the highest bidder. Getting Joe Biden up to testify is likely to backfire, if the goal is to keep him from getting the nomination. Look at Bernie Sanders for example. The more Elizabeth Warren calls him a liar and the more Hillary Clinton says he sucks, the more popular he becomes.

"I don’t know this gentleman. Now, it’s possible I have a picture with him because I have a picture with everybody... I don’t know him.”

Trump on Bolton...

LOLLING that!

Urkraine has said the Bidens haven't broken any laws there. What probable cause is there that hasn't been debunked? Biden's threat to withhold loan guarantees (not even the same as Congress appropriated funds for an ally's defense money) was official policy. He didn't just come up with it. I'm not retelling the story. Y'all can look it up yourselves.

Another "bombshell" revelation that everybody already knows. Yes, Trump held up aid ( as he did with at least 5 other countries with no declaration of the GAO to my knowledge ) because of concern of ongoing corruption whether he ever used the word or not, everybody else did.


So AGAIN, we are left to ask, if this is what Trump did, put a hold on aid until he was convinced the new government in Ukraine would look into the possibility of ongoing corruption and the possibility that Americans were involved in that corruption, does that rise to the level of an impeachable offense and I say no, it doesn't and I would recommend every Republican Senator put those exact words in their speech when asked to explain their no vote on conviction.

Urkraine has said the Bidens haven't broken any laws there. What probable cause is there that hasn't been debunked? Biden's threat to withhold loan guarantees (not even the same as Congress appropriated funds for an ally's defense money) was official policy. He didn't just come up with it. I'm not retelling the story. Y'all can look it up yourselves.



Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Biden didn't break any of their laws.but he broke some of ours, that's what we are focusing on.

J666 - you missed your calling

You really should be Propaganda Minister for the DNC.

Parroting their narrative is a talent - done so well! Originally Posted by oeb11

Good grief, you do realize the manuscript leaks came from someone somewhere in the NSC. Someone risked their job and reputation to get the information out because they felt someone should know. Obviously that’s way over your fat head.

Viva La Shifty Schiff

Urkraine has said the Bidens haven't broken any laws there. What probable cause is there that hasn't been debunked? Biden's threat to withhold loan guarantees (not even the same as Congress appropriated funds for an ally's defense money) was official policy. He didn't just come up with it. I'm not retelling the story. Y'all can look it up yourselves.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You're probably right. Biden probably was working at the direction of the White House and the State Department when he threatened to withhold loan guarantees. And probably the Prosecutor fired, Victor Shokin, was slow walking the investigation into Burisma. (Hunter Biden was a director of Burisma.) In other words, Biden was more likely working against the best interests of his son.

So what would Shokin's motivation be to lie? Perhaps payoffs by Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian businessman who's holed up in Austria trying to avoid extradition to the USA. Shokin wrote an affidavit favorable to Firtash, to use in his extradition case:

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/7656...ryId=765653384

Firtash hired Republican attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing and consultant/translator Lev Parnas to try to get him off, undoubtedly because he thought they could pull some strings with the Trump administration.

Still, if you get Shokin testifying in front of the Senate, I think it could go either way in the court of public opinion. He'd probably paint a picture sympathetic to Trump that hurts Biden.

Urkraine has said the Bidens haven't broken any laws there. What probable cause is there that hasn't been debunked? Biden's threat to withhold loan guarantees (not even the same as Congress appropriated funds for an ally's defense money) was official policy. He didn't just come up with it. I'm not retelling the story. Y'all can look it up yourselves.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Since Democrats all believe that Ukraine merely said what they said to appease Trump, why can't it be true that they have now decided that Biden will be the next President and are saying he broke no laws because they are afraid of the repercussions if he becomes President?


The only solution to the problem is an investigation just like they insisted on investigating Trump with nothing more than the appearance of impropriety.


What a tangled web huh? First the Ukrainians say there was no pressure, no quid pro quo and the Democrats say "they had to say that as to not suffer the consequences of pissing off the current President" and now we are suppose to believe that the Ukrainians are saying the Bidens are innocent because they do not fear what a future Biden President might do?


Here's the solution. Ask the Ukrainians to show the proof they have from their current investigation that the Bidens are indeed innocent. Show us the results of their investigation. How do you know if someone is innocent without a through investigation? The Democrats are now on record saying we can't trust what they say about no pressure from Trump. Why in the world should we then believe them on Biden?


Show us the results of the investigation you are suggesting you have done Ukraine.


As to Joe Biden merely carrying out American policy of insisting you give us the head of your prosecutor or we don't give you any money, other wise know as a quid pro quo although for a "very good reason" don't you know, we own Ole Joe a thank you for confirming what Mulvaney said, "we do it all the time, ask other countries to do things for us or we won't give you any money". Get over it.


This is why the Democrats had to drop the whole quid pro quo line because they did it and no matter how many reasons you give as to why "this" quid pro quo was a good one and Trump's wasn't, it isn't "beyond doubt", that this is something we do all the time. Trump did it on 5 other occasions and all could be said were done to advance his political standing and help him in 2020 just like what Obama did with Russia to ensure his re-election "hey Russia, don't pressure me and I will be re-elected and then we can work together" but nothing wrong with that huh?