39 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And as such, is entirely irrelevant to issues of public concern. Maybe some will be impressed by your use of "weltanshaaung [sic]" when "world view" would do just as well.

That's ok, he spelled it wrong anyway.

Edited January 7, 20206 yr by stevenl

5 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

John Bolton was not ‘fired’, he resigned.

 

Please at least try to keep up.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Tell me if I'm wrong, but as the house already voted on the articles, more can not be added without re opening the investigation .

 

Anyway, once the senate has them they are not obliged to do more than have a vote, so will interesting to see if that happens.

 

Paris accords are good as dead. Always were meaningless if China was excluded.

Given Congress are still fighting court battles to gain access to witnesses and evidence we can expect further impeachment investigations, perhaps a second impeachment.

 

 

5 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

Okay. Then you'd of course be cool with Mulvaney, Trump and any other current WH employee testifying right? RIGHT?

There's no limit to your ability to contort your position to avoid any accountability for this administration. Just surprised you didn't call him an angry Democrat or something, as you've not cared a whit for the truth up until now. Sadly, we all know that the next time this happens to a Democrat President you'll be manning the ramparts demanding subpoenas and howling for testimony.

BTW, the best thing that could happen for your team would be Bolton testifying. A Neocon Snake with decades of experience trying to disrupt the United Nations and any other avenues of international cooperation would surely be the last person I want on the stand on national TV, especially when the supposed "jury" are coordinating the testimony with the White House.

15 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Revenge is a dish best served cold! Someone sacked from a high profile role they were clearly relishing.

 

Would you believe him?

 

No doubt those who want to hear what they expect and hope he will say will.

Thing is, on Twitter, or Fox News, or CNN for that matter, you can say "up is down" all you like, there's no consequences. However, when you testify under oath, those same statements become felony offenses. 

It's interesting, isn't it, how those who testified under oath all painted the same picture and were career professionals who had everything to lose by lying. Yet those who you and others claim to be pure as driven snow offering counter-narratives all refuse in all circumstances to testify under oath, despite being lawfully subpoenaed to do so. Curious, no?

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Well I do find Donne's aphorism to be trite in the modern world because of his Judeo Christian assumptions, that not withstanding, since my weltanshaaung is essentially based on the philosophy of personal autonomy under a the rule of a universal diety, then yes, the happiness of my accountant does in fact equate to good in a personal, philosophical and moral sense.

Only if the name of your universal deity is Mammon.

13 minutes ago, JCauto said:

It's interesting, isn't it, how those who testified under oath all painted the same picture and were career professionals who had everything to lose by lying. Yet those who you and others claim to be pure as driven snow offering counter-narratives all refuse in all circumstances to testify under oath, despite being lawfully subpoenaed to do so. Curious, no?

@TopDeadSenter

@Baerboxer

 

As the only two who have stuck their heads above the parapet on this particular issue, why do you think this is?

 

But Obama, Hillary fail and Never Trump aren't acceptable answers BTW.

And the predictable tvf cabaret of holier than thou leftists get excited and think "we got him this time" 

 

To quote judge smails to Spalding "you'll get nothing and like it" 

Edited January 7, 20206 yr by elmrfudd

11 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

And the predictable tvf cabaret of holier than thou leftists get excited and think "we got him this time" 

 

To quote judge smails to Spalding "you'll get nothing and like it" 

Do you want to know the truth?

54 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Only if the name of your universal deity is Mammon.

Praise the Lawd! ????

45 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Do you want to know the truth?

You mean the version that serves your predetermined narrative? 

Who knows what Bolton will say. Do you think he wouldn't lie to get what he really wants, like a war with Iran? He could be doing this to help Trump. Maybe Trump had to prove himself to Bolton before Bolton would commit to him again? Trump's art of the deal.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Given Congress are still fighting court battles to gain access to witnesses and evidence we can expect further impeachment investigations, perhaps a second impeachment.

 

 

It is astounding the level of irrational emotional drive these leftists have. Losing the house would be hilarious and well deserved. 

Looks like some TV anti trumpers have privately reached out to Bolton and he's told them exactly what he plans to say.

 

8 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Great idea. Get a fired ex employee holding a grudge to testify and call him an impartial expert witness! Would such a witness be acceptable in any normal trial? Seriously, can this farce get any more bizarre? 

If ten people say the same facts, and a pathological liar declaims something different hmmmmm?  Beyond that there are no party lines here-the witnesses were all Trump’s boys at one point, but he stabbed them in the back, as he does anyone that disagrees with him.  So, pretty much anyone Trump has disagreed with, or has quit working for him fits your description.  How many people have quit Trump’s government?

And yes, someone that close to the president would be called as a witness 

????

Edited January 7, 20206 yr by Redline

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

You mean the version that serves your predetermined narrative? 

The version that can be obtained from the witnesses and evidence currently being withheld will do nicely.

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Looks like some TV anti trumpers have privately reached out to Bolton and he's told them exactly what he plans to say.

 

What Bolton has to say will be under oath and subject to the laws of perjury.

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

You mean the version that serves your predetermined narrative? 

Nope, just the truth from people that know, whether i like it or not.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What Bolton has to say will be under oath and subject to the laws of perjury.

Thats a point trump defenders cannot understand. They believe the lies told in support of trump, and his 15,000 lies. 

 

They do not want to here the truth, they are too afraid of it.

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What Bolton has to say will be under oath and subject to the laws of perjury.

Bolton may be a hawk but he's a million times smarter than your TV persona.

He knows the platitudes you've been spouting above....and so do we.

You first tied your hopes to mueller, then a series of highly partisan leakers, butthurt civil servants and whistleblowers, Adam schiff, Pelosi.....now this guy...I will have to give you props for dogged determination. But Trump has played all your impeachment messiahs like patsies....and will continue to do so.

 

Give it up, homie!

Edited January 7, 20206 yr by JHolmesJr

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Revenge is a dish best served cold! Someone sacked from a high profile role they were clearly relishing.

 

Would you believe him?

 

No doubt those who want to hear what they expect and hope he will say will.

only if the allegations are corroborated by supporting evidence.

19 minutes ago, sirineou said:

only if the allegations are corroborated by supporting evidence.

Are assumptions and presumptions made by pouting opponents of the defendant generally considered to be sound supporting evidence?

2 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Are assumptions and presumptions made by pouting opponents of the defendant generally considered to be sound supporting evidence?

No

25 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Are assumptions and presumptions made by pouting opponents of the defendant generally considered to be sound supporting evidence?

Now answer my question,

Is prejudging someone's testimony before you hear it generally considered to be   biased?

I also am willing to make passionate love to Sophie Cookson if called on.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Thats a point trump defenders cannot understand. They believe the lies told in support of trump, and his 15,000 lies. 

 

They do not want to here the truth, they are too afraid of it.

That is quite a large generalized assumption with nothing but an unfounded opinion to back it up. 

Just getting Bolton to testify under oath on what Fiona Hill said will put Trump in a world of hurt. 
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/8/20955523/fiona-hill-transcript-impeachment-testimony

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Nope, just the truth from people that know, whether i like it or not.

So you think he could be innocent? 

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Just getting Bolton to testify under oath on what Fiona Hill said will put Trump in a world of hurt. 
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/8/20955523/fiona-hill-transcript-impeachment-testimony

Please keep vox where it belongs Eric. You can't be this obtuse