Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Smith Jack

(48 posts) Wed Nov 20, 2019, 10:19 PM Nov 2019

trumpCRIME proven- Mulvaney, BOLTON, Pompeo MUST testify!

So now that the Ukraine trumpBRIBERY crime is a undeniable FACT-

It is totally logical that Mulvaney, Bolton and Pompeo to be

FORCED to be brought in- questioned then TESTIFY!

The ignore the subpoena game that Criminal trump is playing is CORRUPT

but incessant pressure must be brought on Mulvaney, Pompeo and MOSTLY Bolton

(or others)!

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

trumpCRIME proven- Mulvaney, BOLTON, Pompeo MUST testify! (Original Post) Smith Jack Nov 2019 OP

And Pence! BigmanPigman Nov 2019 #1

Good chance Bolton will testify. Trump crossed a line that Bolton found beachbumbob Nov 2019 #2

Forced? How you gonna do that? Torture? Shrike47 Nov 2019 #3

BigmanPigman

(51,584 posts)

1. And Pence!

Reply to Smith Jack (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 10:30 PM

Nov 2019

Hello President Pelosi!

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)

2. Good chance Bolton will testify. Trump crossed a line that Bolton found

Reply to Smith Jack (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 10:41 PM

Nov 2019

to be too much.

Shrike47

(6,913 posts)

3. Forced? How you gonna do that? Torture?

Reply to Smith Jack (Original post)

Wed Nov 20, 2019, 10:43 PM

Nov 2019

That’s not the way it works. They could be subpoenaed, fail to appear, or appear and assert executive privilege, and then off to the tangle of the judiciary. That would be straightened out long after it became moot.

The Dems are making obstruction obvious and should make it even more obvious. The news is getting out.

Reply to this discussion