GAME OVER, Trump declares as Old Bolton, Schiff Videos Surface amid Senate impeachment Trial

a reply to: Sookiechacha

so why didn't the dems subpener him curios

a reply to: Steveogold

He threatened to sue them if they did, after they extended an invitation to him to come in for a friendly deposition.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Steveogold

He threatened to sue them if they did, after they extended an invitation to him to come in for a friendly deposition.

Oh yea? A friendly deposition, huh? You don't think Kupperman and Bolton knew what the intent of the House was? Why did they withdraw?

How about sticking with the facts instead of hyperbole?

Leon, who made clear that he was eager to resolve the substance of the dispute, noted that although it’s conceivable the House could change course and pursue Kupperman’s testimony again, the matter would surely end up back in court “seeking a solution to a Constitutional dilemma that has long-standing political consequences: balancing Congress’s well-established power to investigate with a President’s need to have a small group of national security advisors who have some form of immunity from compelled Congressional testimony.”

Source

This is something that ultimately would need to be heard by the Supreme Court. Not a single Justice, ALL of them. It has to go through the judicial process, just like anything else. The House couldn't wait - their own words. They couldn't follow the process - their own words. That is denying the President his Constitutional rights, and their rights under the Executive branch of government.

A dispute between the Executive and Congress is resolved through the Judicial. Clinton's impeachment lasted almost 5 years, but this had to be done in 70+ days?

Right.

It's a damn good thing there are still judges who respect the boundaries of the Constitution and turn to the proper channels to resolve those issues. Otherwise, every "friendly deposition" and subpoena would just be a weaponized impeachment fishing expedition, basically allowing the House to usurp its power and nullify the Executive.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is something that ultimately would need to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Oh yeah?

Then why is Bolton offering to come in and testify now, before the Senate?

Does the Supreme Court need to settle whether or not Bolton can publish his book too?

A dispute between the Executive and Congress is resolved through the Judicial.

Funny that, because right now, the White House legal team is in court arguing that the Judicial Branch has no authority over Executive and Legislative Branch conflicts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

bwaaaahahaha 😆 🥳 🤣 🎱


SHOCK: Busted: John Bolton Took Six Figures From Ukraine Oligarch

..... While he’s now at the center of the impeachment witch hunt, a new report reveals that Bolton pocketed $115,000 from Ukrainian steel oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s foundation shortly before entering Trump’s White House as national security adviser.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is something that ultimately would need to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Oh yeah?

Then why is Bolton offering to come in and testify now, before the Senate?

Does the Supreme Court need to settle whether or not Bolton can publish his book too?

A dispute between the Executive and Congress is resolved through the Judicial.

Funny that, because right now, the White House legal team is in court arguing that the Judicial Branch has no authority over Executive and Legislative Branch conflicts.

I don't know what you're watching, but that is absolutely NOT what they are arguing about. Get your facts straight before you twist them.

They are arguing the Judicial branch authority not being able to blindly assert whether Executive Privilege exists or not without hearing the reasons for it. They are arguing that the facts of the dispute, each and every dispute, of Executive Privilege, must be heard by the Courts, no matter how many hoops they have to jump through. They are arguing that just because the House submits a subpoena to the Executive branch, that the Executive has every right to contest it, that they don't possess the power to overreach the separation of powers.

It's a Constitutional argument, as I pointed out from Leon (a Federal judge that heard the case on this), and as such, he admitted it's essentially too big for him to rule on.

Tow the Constitutional line instead of your party.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I don't know what you're watching, but that is absolutely NOT what they are arguing about. Get your facts straight before you twist them.

Mr Arbitrator of Facts? Why so mad?

Right now the Don McGahn subpoena case and the "absolute immunity" question, is before its 3rd judge. The White House lawyers are arguing that the courts, i.e. the Judicial Branch, should not rule on the case because the Judicial Branch doesn't have authority over either other branch.

They are talking about that, and keep referring to that during the question and answer period going on right now.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I don't know what you're watching, but that is absolutely NOT what they are arguing about. Get your facts straight before you twist them.

Mr Arbitrator of Facts? Why so mad?

Right now the Don McGahn subpoena case and the "absolute immunity" question, is before its 3rd judge. The White House lawyers are arguing that the courts, i.e. the Judicial Branch, should not rule on the case because the Judicial Branch doesn't have authority over either other branch.

They are talking about that, and keep referring to that during the question and answer period going on right now.

It's Arbiter or facts... lol And I'm not mad at all, I'm puzzled by your version of reality when watching the same thing I am.

There's a reason you refuse to acknowledge in my first post from the Federal judge that ruled on it.

It is a matter of Constitutionality, meant to be heard by the Supreme Court. The WH counsel is arguing that it should be fought in the Judicial and rise to the level of the Supreme Court because it questions the fundamental separation of powers and Executive privilege. They didn't argue that the Judicial didn't have authority over either branch, that is ridiculous... they have been saying INCESSANTLY throughout the hearings, that the Judicial is how disputes between branches are rectified, and that the House, in their own words, said that they couldn't wait, thus, they refused to follow the Constitutional separation of powers.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

There's a reason you refuse to acknowledge in my first post from the Federal judge that ruled on it.

Different case, same Trump defense.

I'm talking about the Don McGahn case, which is in it's 3rd federal court. 2 previous judges have ruled against the Trump defense.

But when Congress has taken the administration to court to enforce its subpoenas, Justice Department attorneys have argued that judges can’t resolve the dispute between the legislative branch and the executive.

Instead of charging Trump with obstructing Congress, they’ve argued, Democrats should have taken the president to court to enforce subpoenas of his aides and requests for documents.

But on Thursday, a Justice Department attorney — who, ostensibly, works for the president — completely contradicted this argument.

Here's what Adam Schiff said in his address to the Senate, regarding the subject:

“Today, while we’ve been debating whether a president can be impeached for essentially bogus claims of privilege, for attempting to use the courts to cover up misconduct, the Justice Department in resisting subpoenas is in court today … because, as we know, they’re in here arguing Congress must go to court to enforce its subpoenas, but they’re in the court saying ‘Congress, thou shalt not do that,’” he explained. “So the judge says: ‘If the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there?’ And the Justice Department lawyer’s response is ‘Impeachment! Impeachment!’”

At that, the Senate chamber burst into laughter.

www.rawstory.com... mps-impeachment-defense/

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

There's a reason you refuse to acknowledge in my first post from the Federal judge that ruled on it.

Different case, same Trump defense.

I'm talking about the Don McGahn case, which is in it's 3rd federal court. 2 previous judges have ruled against the Trump defense.

But when Congress has taken the administration to court to enforce its subpoenas, Justice Department attorneys have argued that judges can’t resolve the dispute between the legislative branch and the executive.

Instead of charging Trump with obstructing Congress, they’ve argued, Democrats should have taken the president to court to enforce subpoenas of his aides and requests for documents.

But on Thursday, a Justice Department attorney — who, ostensibly, works for the president — completely contradicted this argument.

Here's what Adam Schiff said in his address to the Senate, regarding the subject:

“Today, while we’ve been debating whether a president can be impeached for essentially bogus claims of privilege, for attempting to use the courts to cover up misconduct, the Justice Department in resisting subpoenas is in court today … because, as we know, they’re in here arguing Congress must go to court to enforce its subpoenas, but they’re in the court saying ‘Congress, thou shalt not do that,’” he explained. “So the judge says: ‘If the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there?’ And the Justice Department lawyer’s response is ‘Impeachment! Impeachment!’”

At that, the Senate chamber burst into laughter.

www.rawstory.com... mps-impeachment-defense/

That's why there is a Supreme Court.

As Sekulow presented, his client went through all of the Courts losing... but when it went to the Supreme Court, they unanimously voted in favor of his client. That is exactly why the Judicial process is structured the way it is, but that's not good enough for Schiff and the House, they want to ignore the separation of powers and jump straight to impeachment. It doesn't matter if it's a different case, or that the Trump defense is the same. If you don't like the way the Judicial system works, you should become a politician and work toward changing it. Otherwise, accept that it is the way it is for a reason, that the Executive has the right to challenge Congress in the Judicial and move on from that argument.

There's a reason the Senate erupted in laughter at Schiff's comments, and it's because of how much of a mockery the House has made of the impeachment process and the Judicial branch.

Adam Schiff has lied on numerous occasions, his credibility is worthless. He claimed he had clear evidence of Russian collusion for years, and had nothing. Not a single American colluded with Russia. His "parody" on national TV was inexcusable and extremely manipulative and so far out of context, he exaggerates every single thing he says and plays on hypotheticals and emotions to make his case. The House has been hellbent on impeaching the President or they wouldn't have submitted 5 separate resolutions in 3 years that all failed until the most partisan one of all was voted on, and had bipartisan support against it. They know if the put all of the pressure on the Senate to do their work for them, that they can put electoral pressure on Senate candidates if the impeachment outcome is not in their favor... that much is obvious to any educated American.

A real leader admits when they are wrong, and that isn't Adam Schiff or Pelosi or Schumer. Whether you like Trump or not, he is our elected President and Americans are tired of the games the Democrats are playing with the Constitution.

~Namaste

a reply to: xuenchen

If Bolton accepted a $115k gift from a Ukrainian big-wig, that means Bolton is on Trump's side. The Trump Admin regularly sends big packages of AID $$$ to Ukraine.

a reply to: Waterglass


The John Bolton book manuscript was leaked/sold to the New York Times either by a traitor on the National Security Council, or by John Bolton himself, or the book's publisher.

Here is an excerpt from an article describing what could happen if John Bolton leaked his manuscript to the NYTimes:

While Bolton was in the media spotlight all week, he may pay a heavy price for the attention. The March 17 publication date of “The Room Where It Happened” is now in doubt.

The White House has requested that Bolton remove material it considers classified.

Even worse, if Justice Department prosecutors can prove that Bolton circulated the manuscript before the pre-publication review was finalized — albeit a big if — they could decide to both revoke his clearance and sue to confiscate any proceeds from the book, which is already the No. 1 Amazon bestseller for its pre-orders.

More at: www.realclearpolitics.com... r&utm_medium=ora-video-widget&utm_source=polls

a reply to: carewemust

Stuff runs really deep in Washington. There was much written in the MSM several years back about those whom surrounded Trump were traitors. The names I remembered were Kelly, Mattis and Bolton. They are also several more who were named by Nikki Haley in her book.

Knowing how the feds work to a certain extent I cannot believe the open contempt for the American people and the extremes "they" are going to to take out Trump. So hes an arsehole. They all are, including Bama. Donald simply wears it on his sleeve as that's how they are in NYC.

The 'they's" obviously have the backs of all whom are doing the above. That is what gives them a backbone and it extends into The Senate, Congress and the Judicial Branch along with Governors. Its scary.

I never looked into it but do you recall all of those Generals whom Obama forced into retirement or fired and whom replaced them. Know who they were and what they stand for would be telling.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Waterglass

RICH! This coming from an administration that glibly claims they have the right to lie to the press, and from a president who's lied more than 15,000 times during his presidency.

Get them both under oath, and then see what they say.

Since when do people not have a right to 'lie' to the press????
Is one under oath when speaking to the press??
If a reporter asks for top secret information or confirmation of some activity, is it no longer OK for members of the administration to deny knowledge, for example???

Can you point me to the part of the Constitution that says it's not ok to lie to the press?

Moreover, if you really cared, you'd be up in arms against the Democrats.

Bolton's video interview where he says that conversations were cordial is not really worth much, HOWEVER, his confirmation that the Adminstration was focused on corruption is very relevant. That focus, as the defence team did a wonderful job of explaining, is all that really matters. It shreds the Democrat case.

a reply to: UKTruth

Plus it's starting to appear that John Bolton's book is a canary trap.

mobile.twitter.com...

Even the liberal media is starting to wonder why Bolton is not speaking up in support of the many reports that have come out.