Bolton's Draft Manuscript Leaked

[ZEKEMUG]

I don't mind having other witnesses. Both sides should be entitled to witnesses. But I'll let you in on a little secret. The last thing your boy wants is for Bolton to testify. Why you ask? Because he knows where the bodies are buried. And I'm not just talking about the Ukraine issue. By the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question. What law did Congress break?

As far as your question, are you asking me personally when I came to the conclusion that he should be impeached?

Ok Congress didn’t follow their own rules. Now tell me what Law did Trump break.

 

[lima23]

Ok Congress didn’t follow their own rules. Now tell me what Law did Trump break.

And most of the house managers voted against giving aid to the Ukraine.

 

[lou97]

Ok Congress didn’t follow their own rules. Now tell me what Law did Trump break.

So they didn't break any laws. Glad you finally acknowledge that. And by the way, the Republican controlled senate changed the rules to get their supreme court nominees through. Something tells me that you won't bitch and moan about that though.

And the answer to your question is the impoundment control act.

 

[GLFSTRM]

So they didn't break any laws. Glad you finally acknowledge that. And by the way, the Republican controlled senate changed the rules to get their supreme court nominees through. Something tells me that you won't bitch and moan about that though.

And the answer to your question is the impoundment control act.

Harry Reid changed the rules

 

[lima23]

So they didn't break any laws. Glad you finally acknowledge that. And by the way, the Republican controlled senate changed the rules to get their supreme court nominees through. Something tells me that you won't bitch and moan about that though.

And the answer to your question is the impoundment control act.

Executive privilege is not a rule. It is a privilege acknowledged by the Supreme Court. Read U.S. v. Nixon. But Democrats put themselves above established law. That's one of many reasons they are so dangerous.

 

[GLFSTRM]

Executive privilege is not a rule. It is a privilege acknowledged by the Supreme Court. Read U.S. v. Nixon. But Democrats put themselves above established law. That's one of many reasons they are so dangerous.

Exactly right, and well explained today if anyone was paying attention...

 

[GLFSTRM]

Alan Dershowitz conducting class on cspan

 

[lou97]

Harry Reid changed the rules

He did not change the rules for approving supreme court justices. Mitch McConnell did. The point is both parties change rules.

 

[lima23]

Again, we are not talking about a rule, such as an executive order. We are talking about a privilege. And that privilege is a matter of law.

 

[lou97]

Executive privilege is not a rule. It is a privilege acknowledged by the Supreme Court. Read U.S. v. Nixon. But Democrats put themselves above established law. That's one of many reasons they are so dangerous.

We weren't discussing executive privilege. He said Congress broke laws. But he eventually admitted that they didn't. I agree. And I've already read U.S. V. Nixon and I know what executive privilege is. But hey Trump tweeted yesterday that the alleged conversations with John Bolton never happened. How can he claim executive privilege for a conversation he says never happened?

 

[lima23]

Again, we are not talking about a rule, such as an executive order. We are talking about a privilege. And that privilege is a matter of law.

If you want that law changed go to the courts. They are an equal branch of government. Or, attempt to do it by statute (that would have to be agreed to by the Senate and signed by the President). Or, better yet put it up as an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[lima23]

We weren't discussing executive privilege. He said Congress broke laws. But he eventually admitted that they didn't. I agree. And I've already read U.S. V. Nixon and I know what executive privilege is. But hey Trump tweeted yesterday that the alleged conversations with John Bolton never happened. How can he claim executive privilege for a conversation he says never happened?

He can claim privilege because any and all conversations with his aides regarding national security matters are privileged. And, his aides cannot be hauled into Congress without a court order, should he object based on executive privilege.

 

[lima23]

The Democrats have already done tremendous damage to the conduct of US policy, not only to the matter at hand, but also by their ridiculous hounding of the President regarding collusion between the Russians and the United. There are no greater lovers of Russia than the Democrats. Obama even allowed the Russians into Syria. That was a first for any President of the United States. And, Bernie even took his honey moon in Russia.

 

[lou97]

He can claim privilege because any and all conversations with his aides regarding national security matters are privileged. And, his aides cannot be hauled into Congress without a court order, should he object based on executive privilege.

Again he said the conversation never happened. Go read his tweet. He's going to have a hard time claiming executive privilege for a communication that he says never took place.

 

[lima23]

As to an assertion of executive privilege it doesn't matter whether the conversation took place. Once executive privilege is asserted you can't haul security aides into Congress. Your argument reminds me of the authoritarians who say, "Why are you afraid of someone coming into your house to search if you have nothing to hide." The Constitution, statutes and common law are there to protect us from authoritarians who have no intent to conduct themselves lawfully.

 

[lima23]

Again he said the conversation never happened. Go read his tweet. He's going to have a hard time claiming executive privilege for a communication that he says never took place.

Here is a quick history of the most frequent users of executive privilege. Note that Clinton's attempt to block testimony of his aides was denied by the courts because there was no national security or public interest involved. Here there obviously is. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fas...rge-washington-barack-obama/story?id=16613606

 

[lou97]

Here is a quick history of the most frequent users of executive privilege. Note that Clinton's attempt to block testimony of his aides was denied by the courts because there was no national security or public interest involved. Here there obviously is. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fas...rge-washington-barack-obama/story?id=16613606

So you're not going to answer the question?

 

[vivijane]

Surprised there's no chatter or thread on this new info released last nite. If true, and it apparently is, don't you think it adds weight to getting witnesses to testify?

Let em testify, so we can get to the bottom of this. He's guilty as all hell, a mountain of evidence already, but not enough to convince most of his supporters.

He obstructed Congress. He refused to cooperate at all, 100% refusal to abide by the request of a co-equal branch of government. If you want a monarch, then I guess co-equal has no meaning. If you agree with the constitution, then you have no choice but to agree that he obstructed.

He abused his power, tried to bribe a foreign government (by withholding foreign aid, $391M) to provide statements/dirt on a political opponent for his own personal gain in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. That was a quid pro quo. He didn't do that for the peoples of America. He did it for himself. And how many Ukrainians died as a result of Trump ordering foreign aid withheld? That fking blood is on his hands folks.

We can not have presidents using foreign governments to affect our elections. How can anyone not agree to that?

Constitutional Law Attorney Alan Dershowitz just explained that if what Bolton said is true is is not a crime.......and still does constitute impeachment.......

 

[lou97]

Here is a quick history of the most frequent users of executive privilege. Note that Clinton's attempt to block testimony of his aides was denied by the courts because there was no national security or public interest involved. Here there obviously is. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fas...rge-washington-barack-obama/story?id=16613606

There was no "public interest" involved with Clinton's executive privilege claim?

 

[lou97]

Constitutional Law Attorney Alan Dershowitz just explained that if what Bolton said is true is is not a crime.......and still does constitute impeachment.......

Shocking that the president's lawyer would say that.

 

[lima23]

Here is a quick history of the most frequent users of executive privilege. Note that Clinton's attempt to block testimony of his aides was denied by the courts because there was no national security or public interest involved. Here there obviously is. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fas...rge-washington-barack-obama/story?id=16613606

I thought I did. But to ratchet it down to a lower level for your comprehension, whether he claimed that the conversation occurred or not does not bar him from asserting executive privilege. People that are resisting a legal process usually do not admit to the matter with which they are charged. But the courts, on a daily basis, uphold the privileges claimed or the laws cited, providing that they apply. As to whether the courts would uphold his privilege, I do not know. That would have to be left to the courts... something that you are unwilling to do.

 

[vivijane]

Shocking that the president's lawyer would say that.

He is not the Presidents lawyer ......Jay Sekulow is his lawyer........Deshowitz is an unbiased Law scholar similar to Jonathon Turley who holds the Constitution in the highest regard ..........

Both Dershowitz and Turley coincidently did not vote for Trump ........Dershowitz voted for Hillary and Turley did not disclose who he voted for but did say he did not vote for Trump during the House Hearings.......

 

[lima23]

There was no "public interest" involved with Clinton's executive privilege claim?

Public interest does not refer to the salacious accusations made against him. It refers to whether a public interest would be served by denying Clinton's claim.

 

[lou97]

I thought I did. But to ratchet it down to a lower level for your comprehension, whether he claimed that the conversation occurred or not does not bar him from asserting executive privilege. People that are resisting a legal process usually do not admit to the matter with which they are charged. But the courts, on a daily basis, uphold the privileges claimed or the laws cited, providing that they apply. As to whether the courts would uphold his privilege, I do not know. That would have to be left to the courts... something that you are unwilling to do.

Of course I'm willing to and he will lose. And the fact that the president denied the conversation happened will assure him of a loss.

 

[lou97]

He is not the Presidents lawyer ......Jay Sekulow is his lawyer........Deshowitz is an unbiased Law scholar similar to Jonathon Turley who holds the Constitution in the highest regard ..........

Both Dershowitz and Turley coincidently did not vote for Trump ........Dershowitz voted for Hillary and Turley did not disclose who he voted for but did say he did not vote for Trump during the House Hearings.......

He is defending the president in the Senate right now. He's his lawyer.

 

[cdwright40]

First, unlike Nixon and Clinton, not one member of the opposite party voted for impeachment. That goes directly to the credibility of the Articles. Second, they hastily impeached because they knew that actual testimony of Republican and Democratic positions would expose the flaws in their articles. Third, Congress is not the governing body. You need to review your high school civics' books. I assume you meant Congress was the entity who had the sole power to impeach, but you did not say that. As far as governing goes, the House has the power to pass a law and if the Senate concurs in its passage and the President signs then it becomes law, UNLESS THE COURTS DECLARE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (Read Marbury v. Madison) (you and your fellow authoritarian Democrats are imbuing Congress with the powers the Legislative Assembly had during the French Revolution) Back to America, after the foregoing process as set forth in the Constitution the President, not the Congress, would administer those laws, i.e. governs.

So what if not one member of the opposite party voted for impeachment. That doesn't mean anything in this polarized political landscape in 2019 and 2020. That doesn't mean shit. The Republican party is not the party of Reagan. It needs to be blown up....this party doesn't stand for republican values or family values anymore. It hasn't for years. Don't believe me? Look at the access hollywood tape. Look at the signed check to the high mileage porn star. Look at the 25 women accusing Trump of rape....etc etc etc.

Damn dude, you are telling me about my high school civics books? I am so embarrassed for you. No, it is the house that has the sole power to impeach the president man. Make google your friend. It is the senate that removes him from office. So, edumucate yourself if you want to have a discussion with a grown man that knows his shit.

READ:

The federal House of Representatives can impeach federal officials, including the president, and each state's legislature can impeach state officials, including the governor, in accordance with their respective federal or state constitution.

 

[cems52]

Didn't Bill and Barak do that? Both of them. Multiple times.

Proof or STFU.

 

[vivijane]

He is defending the president in the Senate right now. He's his lawyer.

Lou i am not getting into a tit for tat w/ you but Dershowitz has said he is not there to defend Trump , he is there to make a plea to the public on the Constitution itself .........seriously look it up .......i understand you hate Trump .......fine i get it but to me Scholars like Dershowitz and Turley are fascinating to listen to ........much of it goes over my head because i am not the sharpest tack in the box but they do an excellent job in there presentations and why the Constitution is vital for the USA in its form of Democracy and its Republic........

 

[lima23]

Of course I'm willing to and he will lose. And the fact that the president denied the conversation happened will assure him of a loss.

The key in any assertion of executive privilege regarding an aide is whether persons subpoenaed had knowledge of national security matters. Once we determine that the person did hold a national security position we go to a balancing test: whether or not the interests involved override the privilege. Here we have a specious claim by Congress, which, even if true, are not impeachable offenses. Chances are you lose. But, anyone who definitely knows what a court will decide is ill informed as to legal processes.

 

[lima23]

So what if not one member of the opposite party voted for impeachment. That doesn't mean anything in this polarized political landscape in 2019 and 2020. That doesn't mean shit. The Republican party is not the party of Reagan. It needs to be blown up....this party doesn't stand for republican values or family values anymore. It hasn't for years. Don't believe me? Look at the access hollywood tape. Look at the signed check to the high mileage porn star. Look at the 25 women accusing Trump of rape....etc etc etc.

Damn dude, you are telling me about my high school civics books? I am so embarrassed for you. No, it is the house that has the sole power to impeach the president man. Make google your friend. It is the senate that removes him from office. So, edumucate yourself if you want to have a discussion with a grown man that knows his shit.

READ:

The federal House of Representatives can impeach federal officials, including the president, and each state's legislature can impeach state officials, including the governor, in accordance with their respective federal or state constitution.

Before you go back to your high school civics' book you need to upgrade your reading skills. "In the post you quoted. assume you meant Congress was the entity who had the sole power to impeach, but you did not say that."

 

[lima23]

Usually I would be in the gym at this point, but I have a cold... hopefully it's not a Chinese cold. I don't have the energy to go to the gym, but debating Democrats does not take any energy.

 

[vivijane]

Obstruction of Congress.................................
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA

wait wait

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA

Spit my drink out LAFFING.........

 

[cdwright40]

Lou i am not getting into a tit for tat w/ you but Dershowitz has said he is not there to defend Trump , he is there to make a plea to the public on the Constitution itself .........seriously look it up .......i understand you hate Trump .......fine i get it but to me Scholars like Dershowitz and Turley are fascinating to listen to ........much of it goes over my head because i am not the sharpest tack in the box but they do an excellent job in there presentations and why the Constitution is vital for the USA in its form of Democracy and its Republic........

You are trying to backtrack. Sorry, it isn't working. Congress does not impeach the president. The House of representatives does that and the Senate decides if he should be removed. The House in fact is the check on the president. We have a government system of checks and balances. We do not have a king. Okay? Now, I don't know what civics books you are referring to but I know my shit.....backwards and forwards and trust me. I have forgotten more about this shit than you know.

Oh, and for all of you people that say I hate Trump. I never wanted Trump to win...blah blah blah....DUH!!! THAT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE HE SUCKS AS PRESIDENT! He is woefully unqualified for the position and has lived his life through privilege. He has never successfully done much of anything on his own...or without his Klan daddy. I hate the klan and Trump to me was bankrupt 6 times leaving his creditors holding the bag. That's a horrible businessman in one business mans opinion. I know....and he abused his charity. Who does that? Not a US president....now it is your right to admire him and your business. But don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because I think he is a POS.

 

[Cane Attack]

Constitutional Law Attorney Alan Dershowitz just explained that if what Bolton said is true is is not a crime.......and still does constitute impeachment.......

Same Dershowitz who did a 180 on the question of a crime. Credibility issues. I don't believe him. Spent too much time harping on an impeachment against Andrew Johnson that occurred 152 years ago.

 

[grbcane]

Usually I would be in the gym at this point, but I have a cold... hopefully it's not a Chinese cold. I don't have the energy to go to the gym, but debating Democrats does not take any energy.

I appreciate your effort, I commend your patience.

I shouldn’t be, but I’m almost shocked at the posts of our democrat friends.
Get rest, and watch out for the Corona https://www.google.com/search?q=corona beer

 

[lima23]

You are trying to backtrack. Sorry, it isn't working. Congress does not impeach the president. The House of representatives does that and the Senate decides if he should be removed. The House in fact is the check on the president. We have a government system of checks and balances. We do not have a king. Okay? Now, I don't know what civics books you are referring to but I know my shit.....backwards and forwards and trust me. I have forgotten more about this shit than you know.

Oh, and for all of you people that say I hate Trump. I never wanted Trump to win...blah blah blah....DUH!!! THAT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE HE SUCKS AS PRESIDENT! He is woefully unqualified for the position and has lived his life through privilege. He has never successfully done much of anything on his own...or without his Klan daddy. I hate the klan and Trump to me was bankrupt 6 times leaving his creditors holding the bag. That's a horrible businessman in one business mans opinion. I know....and he abused his charity. Who does that? Not a US president....now it is your right to admire him and your business. But don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because I think he is a POS.

Ok, this is my last post. Most people refer to the House of Representatives as Congress and the Upper Body as the Senate. When I say most people that includes you: From one of your earlier posts: Obstruction of Congress

 

[lou97]

Lou i am not getting into a tit for tat w/ you but Dershowitz has said he is not there to defend Trump , he is there to make a plea to the public on the Constitution itself .........seriously look it up .......i understand you hate Trump .......fine i get it but to me Scholars like Dershowitz and Turley are fascinating to listen to ........much of it goes over my head because i am not the sharpest tack in the box but they do an excellent job in there presentations and why the Constitution is vital for the USA in its form of Democracy and its Republic........

I know you find the guys that make pro-trump arguments fascinating. I get it. Its really not that difficult to understand. But the fact remains Dershowicz is defending trump is his impeachment trial. Ergo, he is one of his lawyers.

 

[lou97]

Ok, this is my last post. Most people refer to the House of Representatives as Congress and the Upper Body as the Senate. When I say most people that includes you: From one of your earlier posts: Obstruction of Congress

House of representatives is one of two houses of Congress. Hence obstruction of Congress. Read the resolution. Article 2 is labeled "Obstruction of Congress."

 

[ZEKEMUG]

So they didn't break any laws. Glad you finally acknowledge that. And by the way, the Republican controlled senate changed the rules to get their supreme court nominees through. Something tells me that you won't bitch and moan about that though.

And the answer to your question is the impoundment control act.

So congress charged him with violating the Impoundment Control Act ? That’s charged in the impeachment ? Also I know Obstruction of Justice is a crime, what defines Obstruction of Congress.

 

[hawkcanes]

Wrong hawk. C'mon man, surely you knew that. Had the aid not been used by the end of the FY, then it was gone.

The $391M in Ukrainian Aid was budgeted for FY19, which runs from Oct 1st of 2018 until Sep 30 of 2019.

Yes people did die as a result of the lag in the release of the aid. There's a war between Ukraine and Russia and, for example, a key weapons system purchase, the Javelin, was delayed. How many died because of the holdup in aid? Who knows? But it's common sense that if you hold up bullets, Soldiers/people are gonna die as a result.

No your actually wrong. Also Obama withheld aid from Ukraine for 3 years. But but thats ok? I sure everyone lived thru that tho.