Bolton:Trump ok'd China's camps, didn't know UK had nukes, thought Finland was Russia

[*Nately120*]

(06-18-2020, 01:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Bolton blew his chance to testify because he wanted to save the best dirt for his book, but then when he finally tried, it was up to the GOP and they said "nah, we need to be able to pretend like this is ok". 

Capitalism screws us again.  

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 01:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: I share that sentiment. I always hoped that Trump would order his senators to strip naked and cackle like chickens, just to see them actually do it. They all knew he was guilty as charged. Who is the one that admitted as much, Alexander or something? But senator don't care. Senator is a Trump puppy at all costs.

But speaking up at the right time imho is not just about the result. It's a question of honor.

McNaughton will have to retouch his painting.

[*Nately120*]

(06-18-2020, 01:46 PM)Dill Wrote: This brought Caligula to mind. He once declared his horse a god and ordered Roman senators to eat its horseapples. If they refused or spit it out, they were rejecting the substance of the god.

I was going to mention Caligula, but everything I know about him comes from that ultra smutty penthouse film with Malcolm McDowell.  

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 02:55 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was going to mention Caligula, but everything I know about him comes from that ultra smutty penthouse film with Malcolm McDowell.  

Ha ha, "little boots."  Film may not be far off.  He was initially loved by the Army.

[BmorePat87]

(06-18-2020, 02:55 PM)Dill Wrote: McNaughton will have to retouch his painting.

I like how he forgot that it shouldn't just be white people, so he's added the back of a black dude's head in there. 

Edit: Oh man, it's suppose to be Ben Carson, isn't it? Haha, it looks like it was added after the fact.

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 03:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I like how he forgot that it shouldn't just be white people, so he's added the back of a black dude's head in there. 

Edit: Oh man, it's suppose to be Ben Carson, isn't it? Haha, it looks like it was added after the fact.

LOL yes.  Diversity!

[Belsnickel]

(06-18-2020, 01:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, that's hindsight for you.  No way we could have inferred this from EXISTING TEXTUAL EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY.

To be fair, there really wasn't much of a dispute over whether Trump did the thing. The Republicans in the Senate held onto the defense that what he did was not an abuse of power to the level of removal from office.

[Benton]

Yeah but remember that time Obama wore a tan suit? At least least we don't have that **** show anymore.

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, there really wasn't much of a dispute over whether Trump did the thing. The Republicans in the Senate held onto the defense that what he did was not an abuse of power to the level of removal from office.

Sure, every one "knew," but there was a concerted effort on the Republican part not to actually SAY what Trump did, or hear it from his inner circle. The greater the ambiguity, the more effective (for Trump's base and some independents) the convoluted legal defense.

If I remember correctly, Dershowitz' "abuse of power" defense was preceded by "even if," a refusal to outright concede he had done what the whistleblower supposed he had done.

Remember Sekulow disputed the evidence while introducing the the Ukraine conspiracy theory. Bondi seemed to concede some of the facts, but to spin Trump's Ukraine dealings as part of Trump's well known war on corruption.

Some argued that Bolton could add nothing to what witnesses already said, others claimed witnesses outside Trump's inner circle of power, which included Bolton, were "hearsay."

One reason why they did not back a subpoena for documents and testimony was because that would settle the ambiguity. People would have to say outright "Yes, the prez can hold up aid granted by Congress for purposes foreign policy and national security if it will help him get dirt on a rival."  Even Dershowitz' legal lipstick* could not beautify that pig.


*president abusing power to help himself construed as acting in the "national interest"

[fredtoast]

(06-18-2020, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, every one "knew," but there was a concerted effort on the Republican part not to actually SAY what Trump did, or hear it from his inner circle. The greater the ambiguity, the more effective (for Trump's base and some independents) the convoluted legal defense.

It is all about shaping the message for people to hear what they want.

I don't think George W ever said Saddam Hussian was involved in the 9-11 attacks, but by the time we invaded Iraq over half of US citizens thought that was the case.

I guarantee an overwhelming majority of Fox News fans think the senate acquitted Trump because he never did anything wrong at all.

[NATI BENGALS]

I’m starting to think the best thing we can do is buy a little chunk of land from Mexico and exile trump and any remaining trumpets to their new home there. After the rallies of course. Pack it in on those rallies first

[*bfine32*]

No one here has a problem with a former National SECURITY Advisor trying to turn a profit by telling things that he and a sitting President "talked" about?

[Benton]

(06-18-2020, 09:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one here has a problem with a former National SECURITY Advisor trying to turn a profit by telling things that he and a sitting President "talked" about?

It does speak volumes to the people trump has appointed.

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2020, 10:03 PM)Benton Wrote: It does speak volumes to the people trump has appointed.

...and fired

[N_B]

(06-18-2020, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and fired

I don’t get it. Are you a trump supporter?

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2020, 10:31 PM)N_B Wrote: I don’t get it.  Are you a trump supporter?

In this matter: Yes. I Simply asked a question and then replied to the answer of "but Trump". 

Now as to my question: Does you have a problem with a former NSA making public things he and a sitting POTUS discussed in confidence? 

[Benton]

(06-18-2020, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and fired

And quit. And got indicted. 

High turnover in staff is never a good sign.

[hollodero]

(06-18-2020, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and fired

Yeah I don't feel like giving credit to Trump for hiring Bolton straight out of FOX only to realize after quite some time that this guy is a relentless war hawk.

He could have asked me, I could have told him right away.

Btw. if Bolton muses about things that were spoken in confidence, I do have a problem with it. I take it that indeed happened (I don't really intend to delve into the book myself), which does not surprise me. As I said, despicable walrus, stupid book.

[Benton]

(06-18-2020, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In this matter: Yes. I Simply asked a question and then replied to the answer of "but Trump". 

Now as to my question: Does you have a problem with a former NSA making public things he and a sitting POTUS discussed in confidence? 

Yes.

Do you have a problem with a POTUS that would appoint a NSA who doesn't have a problem discussing things in confidence?

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2020, 10:58 PM)Benton Wrote: Yes.

Do you have a problem with a POTUS that would appoint a NSA who doesn't have a problem discussing things in confidence?

Well hindsight is 20/20, but yeah. seems like a bad hire.