Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Mitt Romney Says John Bolton Testimony Is 'Relevant And Therefore I'd Like To Hear It' | NBC News" video.

@christinadaly7743 They did -- which you'd know if you weren't watching FOX. Bolton refused. McGahn refused, and that is still in court, on appeal, though the lower court held that the impeachment decisions reside exclusively with the House, which has the SOLE power. Appealing to the courts is an effort to avoid, delay, and subvert Congressional oversight in the form of impeachment.
2
@AE-km1gz You have zero credibility. Trump's Obstruction of Congress is continuing, and is open-and-shut impeachable. Which you'd know, if you were an American who has read the Constitution, or at least paid attention to other than extremist right-wing anti-American media. Trump cites Article 2 as saying he can do "anything he wants". Article 2 also happens to include the Impeachment Clause, which is a direct and immediate REFUTATION of his claim.
1
@donaldvogelbacher8565 They subpoenaed Bolton and his deputy. Bolton's deputy went to court, and Bolton refused. A subpoena is not a "request" -- it is an ORDER. It is a violation of law to ignore a subpoena.
1
@RM-ov8gk 1. The House subpoenaed McGahn. He went to court. The court held that he had to deal with Congress, because the judicial branch has no role in impeachments. He appealed. Bolton and his deputy were subpoenaed. Bolton refused, and his deputy went to court. And there is no bar in the Senate trial to gather further witness testimony and documents. That's how DUE PROCESS works. Those are the facts. FOX is feeding you sewerage.
1
The Republicans, who hate Clinton's guts, "investigated" her repeatedly for 30 years. And in EVERY instance they exonerated her, because everything they "investigated" was a fake "scandal". Clue: an allegation -- a smear -- is evidence of nothing but the motive of the accuser. It is not PROOF. Witness testimony and documents are, in cases like this impeachment, are proof.In sum: you contribute nothing of vlue or merit, so would be more persuasive by remaining silent.
1
@al-bot1094 When he ran for governor, and as governor of Massachusetts, which is Democratically-dominated, Republican Romney was pro-choice on abortion. Then when he decided to run for president, as a Republican, he was suddenly anti-choice. I expect Romney will do whatever doesn't muss his hair, while his finger is ever to the political winds.
1
@davidgoldman9820 Ken Starr? You do know, don't you, that he was forced to resign from Baylor University School of Law for covering up sexual assault allegations against the Baylor football team? In other words: Starr has always been a political hack; and like Dershowitz, who claims to be a Liberal Democrat, is asserting now the exact opposite of that which he asserted when Clinton/a Democrat was being impeached. If I want to listen to flat-out lying against the known facts, I'll listen to the defenders of Trump. Let's look at just the issue of ethics: 1. Trump defense lawyer Cippolone was named by Parnas -- WITH DOCUMENTATION -- as a participant in the issue for which Trump has been impeached and is being tried. ETHICALLY one cannot be both a lawyer for a party, and a witness, in the same trial. 2. Parnas -- also WITH DOCUMENTATION -- Parnas named Sekulow as a participant in the issue for which Trump has been impeached and is being tried. ETHICALLY one cannot be both a lawyer for a party, and a witness , in the same trial. It's easy to believe whatever one wants, of course, if one dispenses with Constitution, rule of law, ethics, facts, and truth. We know not only that Trump attempted to shake down Ukraine -- Mulvaney admitted it, as a DIRECT WITNESS, on tape. And we know that Trump has REPEATEDLY invited other foreign powers -- including Russia and China -- to subvert the US election: we have him ON TAPE doing so. It is also STATUTORILY ILLEGAL to accept of solicit foreign help in US elections. If you approve of those ILLEGAL efforts to subvert the election, would you approve if the subversion were to favor the candidate you DON'T want elected? I thought not. And what does that say for YOUR ethics?
1
@paulmcgarr6557 The Obstruction of Congress, which continues, is itself open-and-shut. Apparently Goldman hates the United States, which was founded on the Constitution and rule of law, not on partisan politics, and who is willing to subvert the country for political gain.
1
@A G Schiff's Intelligence Committee DID SUBPOENA Bolton, and his deputy Kupperman, moron,. Kuppermann went to court, and Bolton refused, saying he'll rely on what the court rules on Kuppermann. FOX didn't tell you that because FOX is lying to you. They also subpoenaed McGahn, who went to court, the court told him to take it to Congress, and he appealed. Meanwhile, the days until the next election, which Trump has repeatedly and publicly invited other foreign powers to subvert, are diminishing. All of this has been explained, over and over again, by the Democrats, and in the media,. all of which is INDEPENDENTLY DOCUMENTED.
1
@philmontejano5971 Schiff has brains. But you reject the rule of law.
1
@philmontejano5971 Schiff is a seasoned prosecutor. And you're a law-illiterate who rejects not only reason, but also the Constitution and laws. That makes you anti-American.
1
@philmontejano5971 The Impeachment Clause is in the Constitution, and it is that the Democrats base the Articles. Clue, moron: name-calling is childish and stupid. Alas, that's all you have. For the negative-measured degree of your contribution, you'd be more persuasive if you were to entirely shut up.
1
@philmontejano5971 The House Managers are winning: the Republicans are beginning to shift to voting FOR witnesses and documents -- for a REAL trial, instead of a scam you morons prefer to freedom.
1
Da Choppah None of them are relevant to the case, moron. you want "due process"? -- then stop rejecting it. As for the whistleblower: irrelevant, as everything in the whistleblower's complaint has been 100 per cent verified by actual witness testimony and documents.
1
@A G The mainstream media is the media that hyped and hyped and hyped the fake Clinton emails "scandal". They are not the Left. And the correct phrase is "one AND the same". Still, you have it wrong on the media. And you aren't qualified to diagnose anyone as being a "narcissist". And you know next to nothing about Romney.
1
@kerri7971 no, I don't know everything. And by comparison, you know nothing. The Republicans, who hate Clinton's guts, "investigated" her repeatedly for 30 years. And in EVERY instance they exonerated her, because everything they "investigated" was a fake "scandal". That's how republicans play: dirty politics: smear a Democrat, then demand "investigation," then "investigate" -- and find NOTHING. It's long past due that Republicans be investigated for being on the take with Russia.
1
@phylum775 They are most persuasive when they remain totally silent.
1
@studygodsword5937 So it's your view -- uninformed and unethical -- that those who adhere to their oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution are mentally ill? Is your actual name Vladimir Putin -- because that's how it works in Russia?
1
@studygodsword5937 Trump is going to be removed: the Republicans, for good faith or bad, will have no choice if they want to be re-elected. 22 Republicans are up for re-election; they can either remember that they swore their oath to the Constitution, not to the president, or they can take their chances twisting in the wind.
1
@studygodsword5937 Again, you know nothing of law. And this is not a football game where the one who shouts the loudest "wins". Facts matter -- and it is the facts that the Republicans are totally avoiding. And in so doing, they are violating their oath to the Constitution, and thereby undermining the Constitution and rule of law. As for Jordan: suggest you research his history involving sexual assaults. Or do you defend that too? As for Nunes: he is a traitor to the United States, working to advance Putin's totalitarianism within the United States. In short: you'd be more persuasive if either you knew what you're talking about -- you don't -- or you were to remain totally silent.
1
Your baseless hate is showing. Hate is immoral.
1
They didn't address the charges or the evidence. Attacking the House -- which is irrelevant, attacking Pelosi -- who is irrelevant -- attacking the Bidens -- who are irrelevant -- proves only that they are running away from the overwhelming evidence.If they were in the right, they'd DEMAND the witnesses and documents to PROVE they are. They are part of the problem, anti-American.Facts matter. You aren't clever, moron.
1
have someone read "Federalist 65" to you.
1
@studygodsword5937 Elitist: a person who can read, comprehend, and write. Have someone read "Federalist 65" to you.
1
Josh The Whistleblower It can't be proven that there is a "God". And if there were, and of the characteristics attributed to "Him," "He" has an infinite universe to run, gave humans freedom of choice as to what they believe, and has no time or interest in intervening in the affairs that occur on a mote of dust. To believe otherwise is arrogant. Same goes for those who presume to speak for Jesus.
1