Who Really Hired John Bolton???

[pknopp]

What kind of a scumbag is hired as your "adviser" and then writes an election year tell all book about you?

But, even if what has been reported is true, it's not a crime and impeachment requires a high crime like bribery or treason to be grounds for removal.

Bolton, Well Known Back Stabbing Traitor

George W. Bush Blasted John Bolton In 2008: ‘I Don’t Consider Bolton Credible.’ “After Bolton trashed Bush in an op-ed, the former president complained that he had expended political capital on Bolton and got little in return.”

After what was known about Bolton what kind of fool hires him?

Fools that don't know any better

LOSIN’ IT: TDS on Maximum: Lawrence O’Donnell’s Conspiracy Theory on John Bolton.

Deranged Fake News Nut Case
​

Lawrence O'Donnell concludes that Trump only killed Soleimani in order to pay off John Bolton to convince him not to testify in impeachment, or something.

"John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran. 2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani. Coincidence? Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate?"
​

the MSNBC host tweeted.

This deranged nut-burger has actually be allowed to ask questions in Presidential debates.



Lawrence O'Donnell

✔@Lawrence
John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran.

2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani.

Coincidence?

Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate? https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1213044218689720321 …

John Bolton

✔@AmbJohnBolton

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

11.5K
9:50 AM - Jan 27, 2020

Lawrence O'Donnell wants to be taken seriously with this insanity — he has not yet deleted the tweet, nor apparently has he realized how dumb it looks.

O'Donnell shows his Trump derangement syndrome in the passion to search for an underlying hidden motive for the Soleimani strike — as if the Quds Force leader had not wreaked havoc on the Middle East, killed hundreds of U.S. troops, likely coordinated an attack on a U.S. Embassy, and almost certainly was planning more attacks, some likely imminent. None of this is enough to satisfy Lawrence O'Donnell, who must find Trump's nefarious motive in carrying out this extremely reasonable response.

Then the recency bias kicked in. The Fake News New York Times revealed that John Bolton was the critical witness to destroy the president's impeachment defense, or so the Fake News MSNBC host seemingly thinks. (Bolton's claim is questionable and even if the former advisor is telling the truth, most Republicans would likely conclude that this is not an impeachable offense.) Since John Bolton is the "bombshell" of the moment, he must be the hidden piece to explain Trump's strike on Soleimani.

That this is a conspiracy theory should be obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with the Republican thinking on impeachment and the evil history of Qasem Soleimani. Yet it seems Lawrence O'Donnell is so deeply infected by TDS and recency bias, and so immersed in a liberal bubble, that he is willing to propose this kind of conspiracy theory.

Sad!

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What's your point?

We have psychopaths running things.

 

[Zorro!]

After what was known about Bolton what kind of fool hires him?

Fools that don't know any better

LOSIN’ IT: TDS on Maximum: Lawrence O’Donnell’s Conspiracy Theory on John Bolton.

Deranged Fake News Nut Case
​

Lawrence O'Donnell concludes that Trump only killed Soleimani in order to pay off John Bolton to convince him not to testify in impeachment, or something.

"John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran. 2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani. Coincidence? Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate?"
​

the MSNBC host tweeted.

This deranged nut-burger has actually be allowed to ask questions in Presidential debates.



Lawrence O'Donnell

✔@Lawrence
John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran.

2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani.

Coincidence?

Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate? https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1213044218689720321 …

John Bolton

✔@AmbJohnBolton

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

11.5K
9:50 AM - Jan 27, 2020

Lawrence O'Donnell wants to be taken seriously with this insanity — he has not yet deleted the tweet, nor apparently has he realized how dumb it looks.

O'Donnell shows his Trump derangement syndrome in the passion to search for an underlying hidden motive for the Soleimani strike — as if the Quds Force leader had not wreaked havoc on the Middle East, killed hundreds of U.S. troops, likely coordinated an attack on a U.S. Embassy, and almost certainly was planning more attacks, some likely imminent. None of this is enough to satisfy Lawrence O'Donnell, who must find Trump's nefarious motive in carrying out this extremely reasonable response.

Then the recency bias kicked in. The Fake News New York Times revealed that John Bolton was the critical witness to destroy the president's impeachment defense, or so the Fake News MSNBC host seemingly thinks. (Bolton's claim is questionable and even if the former advisor is telling the truth, most Republicans would likely conclude that this is not an impeachable offense.) Since John Bolton is the "bombshell" of the moment, he must be the hidden piece to explain Trump's strike on Soleimani.

That this is a conspiracy theory should be obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with the Republican thinking on impeachment and the evil history of Qasem Soleimani. Yet it seems Lawrence O'Donnell is so deeply infected by TDS and recency bias, and so immersed in a liberal bubble, that he is willing to propose this kind of conspiracy theory.

Sad!

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What's your point?

We have psychopaths running things.

How does this post support your claim?

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

 

[pknopp]

Fools that don't know any better

LOSIN’ IT: TDS on Maximum: Lawrence O’Donnell’s Conspiracy Theory on John Bolton.

Deranged Fake News Nut Case
​

Lawrence O'Donnell concludes that Trump only killed Soleimani in order to pay off John Bolton to convince him not to testify in impeachment, or something.

"John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran. 2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani. Coincidence? Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate?"
​

the MSNBC host tweeted.

This deranged nut-burger has actually be allowed to ask questions in Presidential debates.



Lawrence O'Donnell

✔@Lawrence
John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran.

2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani.

Coincidence?

Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate? https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1213044218689720321 …

John Bolton

✔@AmbJohnBolton

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

11.5K
9:50 AM - Jan 27, 2020

Lawrence O'Donnell wants to be taken seriously with this insanity — he has not yet deleted the tweet, nor apparently has he realized how dumb it looks.

O'Donnell shows his Trump derangement syndrome in the passion to search for an underlying hidden motive for the Soleimani strike — as if the Quds Force leader had not wreaked havoc on the Middle East, killed hundreds of U.S. troops, likely coordinated an attack on a U.S. Embassy, and almost certainly was planning more attacks, some likely imminent. None of this is enough to satisfy Lawrence O'Donnell, who must find Trump's nefarious motive in carrying out this extremely reasonable response.

Then the recency bias kicked in. The Fake News New York Times revealed that John Bolton was the critical witness to destroy the president's impeachment defense, or so the Fake News MSNBC host seemingly thinks. (Bolton's claim is questionable and even if the former advisor is telling the truth, most Republicans would likely conclude that this is not an impeachable offense.) Since John Bolton is the "bombshell" of the moment, he must be the hidden piece to explain Trump's strike on Soleimani.

That this is a conspiracy theory should be obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with the Republican thinking on impeachment and the evil history of Qasem Soleimani. Yet it seems Lawrence O'Donnell is so deeply infected by TDS and recency bias, and so immersed in a liberal bubble, that he is willing to propose this kind of conspiracy theory.

Sad!

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What's your point?

We have psychopaths running things.

How does this post support your claim?

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What else do you want me to support? If you think I'm wrong, show me.

 

[Zorro!]

LOSIN’ IT: TDS on Maximum: Lawrence O’Donnell’s Conspiracy Theory on John Bolton.

Deranged Fake News Nut Case
​

Lawrence O'Donnell concludes that Trump only killed Soleimani in order to pay off John Bolton to convince him not to testify in impeachment, or something.

"John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran. 2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani. Coincidence? Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate?"
​

the MSNBC host tweeted.

This deranged nut-burger has actually be allowed to ask questions in Presidential debates.



Lawrence O'Donnell

✔@Lawrence
John Bolton is an extreme hawk on Iran.

2 days after Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House, Trump killed Iran's General Qassem Soleimani.

Coincidence?

Or was Trump trying to influence Bolton not to testify to the Senate? https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1213044218689720321 …

John Bolton

✔@AmbJohnBolton

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

11.5K
9:50 AM - Jan 27, 2020

Lawrence O'Donnell wants to be taken seriously with this insanity — he has not yet deleted the tweet, nor apparently has he realized how dumb it looks.

O'Donnell shows his Trump derangement syndrome in the passion to search for an underlying hidden motive for the Soleimani strike — as if the Quds Force leader had not wreaked havoc on the Middle East, killed hundreds of U.S. troops, likely coordinated an attack on a U.S. Embassy, and almost certainly was planning more attacks, some likely imminent. None of this is enough to satisfy Lawrence O'Donnell, who must find Trump's nefarious motive in carrying out this extremely reasonable response.

Then the recency bias kicked in. The Fake News New York Times revealed that John Bolton was the critical witness to destroy the president's impeachment defense, or so the Fake News MSNBC host seemingly thinks. (Bolton's claim is questionable and even if the former advisor is telling the truth, most Republicans would likely conclude that this is not an impeachable offense.) Since John Bolton is the "bombshell" of the moment, he must be the hidden piece to explain Trump's strike on Soleimani.

That this is a conspiracy theory should be obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with the Republican thinking on impeachment and the evil history of Qasem Soleimani. Yet it seems Lawrence O'Donnell is so deeply infected by TDS and recency bias, and so immersed in a liberal bubble, that he is willing to propose this kind of conspiracy theory.

Sad!

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What's your point?

We have psychopaths running things.

How does this post support your claim?

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What else do you want me to support? If you think I'm wrong, show me.

Here is your claim:

i) We have psychopaths running things.

Here is your supporting argument:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

How do you think those statements support your claim?

Take this one:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

That shows that "we have psychopaths running things"? I don't see how that supports your assertion. And what is it that you are claiming is being run by psychopaths? All I see is a retarded claim by a Fake News Clown that labors under recency bias and nonexistent reasoning skills.

 

[pknopp]

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What's your point?

We have psychopaths running things.

How does this post support your claim?

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What else do you want me to support? If you think I'm wrong, show me.

Here is your claim:

i) We have psychopaths running things.

Here is your supporting argument:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

How do you think those statements support your claim?

Take this one:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

That shows that "we have psychopaths running things"? I don't see how that supports your assertion. And what is it that you are claiming is being run by psychopaths? All I see is a retarded claim by a Fake News Clown that labors under recency bias and nonexistent reasoning skills.

If you are unable to understand the argument I made, then you aren't.

 

[Zorro!]

What's your point?

We have psychopaths running things.

How does this post support your claim?

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What else do you want me to support? If you think I'm wrong, show me.

Here is your claim:

i) We have psychopaths running things.

Here is your supporting argument:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

How do you think those statements support your claim?

Take this one:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

That shows that "we have psychopaths running things"? I don't see how that supports your assertion. And what is it that you are claiming is being run by psychopaths? All I see is a retarded claim by a Fake News Clown that labors under recency bias and nonexistent reasoning skills.

If you are unable to understand the argument I made, then you aren't.

It's gibberish. That is why I gave you an opportunity to take another swing at it.

Your claim is:
i) We have psychopaths running things.

Your "supporting argument" is:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

There is nothing about point ii) that exclusively supports point i). Point ii) could as easily support a similarly vacuous claim like:

xi) This sucks!

And your supporting argument could be something as incongruent as:

xi) Orange Man Bad!!!!!

When you are talking about removing an elected President from power and removing a sitting President from the upcoming ballot, you need stronger points and supporting arguments. But, you do give us an insight into the intended audience of Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry and for that we are grateful.

 

[pknopp]

We have psychopaths running things.

How does this post support your claim?

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

What else do you want me to support? If you think I'm wrong, show me.

Here is your claim:

i) We have psychopaths running things.

Here is your supporting argument:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

How do you think those statements support your claim?

Take this one:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

That shows that "we have psychopaths running things"? I don't see how that supports your assertion. And what is it that you are claiming is being run by psychopaths? All I see is a retarded claim by a Fake News Clown that labors under recency bias and nonexistent reasoning skills.

If you are unable to understand the argument I made, then you aren't.

It's gibberish. That is why I gave you an opportunity to take another swing at it.

Your claim is:
i) We have psychopaths running things.

Your "supporting argument" is:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

There is nothing about point ii) that exclusively supports point i). Point ii) could as easily support a similarly vacuous claim like:

xi) This sucks!

And your supporting argument could be something as incongruent as:

xi) Orange Man Bad!!!!!

When you are talking about removing an elected President from power and removing a sitting President from the upcoming ballot, you need stronger points and supporting arguments. But, you do give us an insight into the intended audience of Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry and for that we are grateful.

I never argued that. I have never supported the impeachment. I can now see your issue with not being able to understand what I said.

 

[Zorro!]

How does this post support your claim?

What else do you want me to support? If you think I'm wrong, show me.

Here is your claim:

i) We have psychopaths running things.

Here is your supporting argument:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

How do you think those statements support your claim?

Take this one:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

That shows that "we have psychopaths running things"? I don't see how that supports your assertion. And what is it that you are claiming is being run by psychopaths? All I see is a retarded claim by a Fake News Clown that labors under recency bias and nonexistent reasoning skills.

If you are unable to understand the argument I made, then you aren't.

It's gibberish. That is why I gave you an opportunity to take another swing at it.

Your claim is:
i) We have psychopaths running things.

Your "supporting argument" is:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

There is nothing about point ii) that exclusively supports point i). Point ii) could as easily support a similarly vacuous claim like:

xi) This sucks!

And your supporting argument could be something as incongruent as:

xi) Orange Man Bad!!!!!

When you are talking about removing an elected President from power and removing a sitting President from the upcoming ballot, you need stronger points and supporting arguments. But, you do give us an insight into the intended audience of Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry and for that we are grateful.

I never argued that. I have never supported the impeachment. I can now see your issue with not being able to understand what I said.

Here is what I asked clarification, because the point you were making was unclear:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

 

[pknopp]

What else do you want me to support? If you think I'm wrong, show me.

Here is your claim:

i) We have psychopaths running things.

Here is your supporting argument:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

How do you think those statements support your claim?

Take this one:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

That shows that "we have psychopaths running things"? I don't see how that supports your assertion. And what is it that you are claiming is being run by psychopaths? All I see is a retarded claim by a Fake News Clown that labors under recency bias and nonexistent reasoning skills.

If you are unable to understand the argument I made, then you aren't.

It's gibberish. That is why I gave you an opportunity to take another swing at it.

Your claim is:
i) We have psychopaths running things.

Your "supporting argument" is:

ii) Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

There is nothing about point ii) that exclusively supports point i). Point ii) could as easily support a similarly vacuous claim like:

xi) This sucks!

And your supporting argument could be something as incongruent as:

xi) Orange Man Bad!!!!!

When you are talking about removing an elected President from power and removing a sitting President from the upcoming ballot, you need stronger points and supporting arguments. But, you do give us an insight into the intended audience of Bug-eyed Schiff and Fat Jerry and for that we are grateful.

I never argued that. I have never supported the impeachment. I can now see your issue with not being able to understand what I said.

Here is what I asked clarification, because the point you were making was unclear:

Hardly anyone ever heard of Soleimani until we killed him. Now all of a sudden he was one of the most evil men on the planet.

I wonder if one could even find a mention of him here before he was killed.

Did Trump do it to not get Bolton to testify? No idea but you can bet Bolton would have supported it.

Bolton would have supported and promoted anything to get us involved in another war. The guy is a psychopath.

Would the fact that we didn't go to cancel any good feelings Bolton might have had? Maybe.

Did you address what I said? How is it that no one ever mentioned this "evil guy" before we decided to kill him?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Fred Fleitz: Ambassador Bolton, withdraw your book


So everyone is talking about the leaked manuscript from Bolton's book where he confirms that Trump indeed did everything he is currently being impeached for -- really John Bolton?? -- How about you say that under oath?? What are you afraid of?? Even if he did testify, Trump will do everything to stop him in order to protect America!! --- However, that isn't the real story...the real story is who leaked the manuscript and who really hired John Bolton?

As former Bolton chief of staff wrote yesterday, "I have known John Bolton for 30 years and served as his chief of staff twice, at the State Department from 2001-2005 and at the White House National Security Council in 2018. He is an exceptional national security expert and a man of great integrity. President Trump’s choice of Bolton was one of his best personnel decisions and was I very sorry when the courageous and visionary national security adviser left the White House after the relationship broke down." -- that is quite a bit of deepthroating this guy starts out with....but he continues...

"I haven’t seen Bolton’s book manuscript and I don’t know what’s in it. I take Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times. I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country. There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election." --- so basically he is saying Bolton shouldn't have wrote this book until well after the election because it may be damaging to Trump -- ok sure... is that why he shouldn't testify either, because it also may be damaging to Trump?? Should there be a law that books should not be published that hurts a president until well after an election??

So I have 2 questions....who forced Trump to hire Bolton? and when I say who, I already know it was the Deep State that made Trump do it -- but who in the Deep State? Was it Obama, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney or Spurs coach Greg Popovich?? These questions must be answered...

Also....Since we all know that Trump only hires the best people -- who do you think is Trump's best hire and why?? I asked this question before and 90% of the answers are now all people everyone claims is the Deep State.

Best hire by Trump?

Ivanka Trump!

Why?

Just look at her...

Or

Melania if you prefer her instead...

Who hired John Bolton in the Trump Administration?

Well that is a National Security secret and executive privilege...

 

[Aletheia4u]

Trump hired him. Seems there are a lot of times people try to deflect from Trump any responsibility for his actions. Was his arm twisted? You would have to have been an idiot to have hired Bolton. Either is arguable. No matter what, Trump hired him.

Confirmed: John Bolton and Fiona Hill Quarterbacking Coup Against Trump