Bolton is looking for his 15 minutes.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: network dude

Has it come out of Bolton's own mouth yet that what the NYT's insinuates is in his book is ACTUALLY in his book?

The timing is what makes me just a tiny bit suspicious. If nothing like this came out, the Trial would likely be over in a few days. Now, it seems perhaps not. Convenient and shady are two words that come to mind.

Yes, and you know who reviews books for the NSC, Vindman’s twin brother.

that can't be right.

a reply to: network dude

Of course the timing wasn’t a coincidence. I wonder how long they’ve been holding on to the story ?

“that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."

That’s a little misleading in my opinion . The quotation marks don’t indicate a passage from the book . Some people might interpret it that way .

Instead it Indicates a quote from someone Bolton denied had access to the book.

Not to mention the part in bold.

Were the Bidens specifically mentioned ?

Or do they think we don’t know that the Bidens are Democrats . Lol

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: stosh64

Partisanship over facts..

I wonder why Trump only put people whom will turn on him in office... Statistically could it be possible everyone are traitors or...

Fact is Bolton would lie through his mustache for his foreign policy agendas... So if a guy is willing to start conflicts that will cost lives over lies... What do you think he's capable of with someone who fires him? What would someone like that do with fallout?

I don't feel sorry for Trump at all in this. Play with snakes, get bit... Let them in your circle and don't come crying to me. But I will use all of the above for my pursuit of truths.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: network dude

Has it come out of Bolton's own mouth yet that what the NYT's insinuates is in his book is ACTUALLY in his book?

I won't be surprised if it does. Bolton was a Neocon from the get go. I was pissed when Trump picked that UN scumbag.

Me either, but with the NYT history there is more than the normal doubt, especially when it comes to reporting on Trump.
I simply want confirmation before reacting and that gets called partisan.
Go figure...

a reply to: network dude

Convenient? Yes. Calculated? Almost definitely. Shady? I'm not so sure of that.

The Dems have been trying to get Bolton to testify since the beginning, but the White House House GOP have done everything in their power to prevent that from happening.

With the trial possibly winding down this may have been the only move left that could actually get Bolton on the stand.

If Bolton actually has pertinent testimony, why would it be considered shady to ensure he testifies. If anything the ones that are trying to stop his testimony are the shady ones.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: stosh64

Partisanship over facts..

I wonder why Trump only put people whom will turn on him in office... Statistically could it be possible everyone are traitors or...

Fact is Bolton would lie through his mustache for his foreign policy agendas... So if a guy is willing to start conflicts that will cost lives over lies... What do you think he's capable of with someone who fires him? What would someone like that do with fallout?

I don't feel sorry for Trump at all in this. Play with snakes, get bit... Let them in your circle and don't come crying to me. But I will use all of the above for my pursuit of truths.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Convenient? Yes. Calculated? Almost definitely. Shady? I'm not so sure of that.

The Dems have been trying to get Bolton to testify since the beginning, but the White House House GOP have done everything in their power to prevent that from happening.

With the trial possibly winding down this may have been the only move left that could actually get Bolton on the stand.

If Bolton actually has pertinent testimony, why would it be considered shady to ensure he testifies. If anything the ones that are trying to stop his testimony are the shady ones.

Lol
Obstruction of congress ,right?

The house dems simply should have followed the rules and sought relief in court.
When they dont here comes the nyt to save the day?
Lol
Bs

Desperation is a stinky cologne dnc.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Convenient? Yes. Calculated? Almost definitely. Shady? I'm not so sure of that.

The Dems have been trying to get Bolton to testify since the beginning, but the White House House GOP have done everything in their power to prevent that from happening.

With the trial possibly winding down this may have been the only move left that could actually get Bolton on the stand.

If Bolton actually has pertinent testimony, why would it be considered shady to ensure he testifies. If anything the ones that are trying to stop his testimony are the shady ones.

Lol
Obstruction of congress ,right?

The house dems simply should have followed the rules and sought relief in court.
When they dont here comes the nyt to save the day?
Lol
Bs

Desperation is a stinky cologne dnc.

Exactly.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You may have missed it, but as I asked, if there is ANY bit of evidence that Joe or Hunter did anything corrupt in Ukraine, wouldn't that completely negate all the worries about Trump asking Zalinsky to look into it?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

If he has first hand evidence pertinent to the hearing then he should testify just as anyone with pertinent first hand evidence for the defence side should be allowed to testify.

Surely the truth is what matters here , Bolton will never be popular.

If Bolton has evidence, I'd love to see it. Don't know if I could call his word evidence.

He and Schiff pinky-swear that it's all true......

So I read the NY Times article looking to see what Bolton might have written.

There where no direct quotes. Only a summary of what someone not named might have said about the book.

Its embarrassing that this passes as important news in the US these days.

Then there is this:

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.

So Bolton doesn't even stand behind the leaks that are not even quoted. In fact he's blaming the Trump administration for leaking the information that is supposed to be damaging to them?

www.nytimes.com... Stories&pgtype=Homepage

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You may have missed it, but as I asked, if there is ANY bit of evidence that Joe or Hunter did anything corrupt in Ukraine, wouldn't that completely negate all the worries about Trump asking Zalinsky to look into it?

Yeah, the were sloppy with their money-laundering.
Which exposes about 20 other dems getting piles of cash magically moved through banks that popped up overnight seemingly just to funnel cash to certain people...

Bolton is a history professor. Great for lessons on how we got here. Horrible for real time adjustments to policies. Whenever he tries it ends up a disaster and why Trump fired him. He's a bitter old history professor who can't accept his body of knowledge is worthless outside of a classroom or in a book on what happened.

I respect many of my old college professors, smart people but if I applied much of what they taught me in the real world I would be a failure in this life. I may have earned a C in their classes but outside of their classroom I would love to compare my life grade to their grade. This is why Bolton is infuriated. How can Trump be President? How can he be a billionaire? He's an idiot. It has to be eating Bolton up inside.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Bolton's attorney Charles Cooper is currently entangled with the House in court over whether another client of his, Charles Kupperman, must testify before the House. The White House blocked Kupperman, Trump's former deputy national security adviser, with similar reasons it used for preventing testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn and other top White House officials.

The House has tried to get out of the newer case that ties up Kupperman's subpoena in court -- and could potentially do the same for Bolton's testimony. The House retracted its subpoena to Kupperman this week, and that's part of the reason why the House hasn't subpoenaed Bolton: to avoid the start of yet another court battle.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said that officials who do not testify are only adding to Democrats' case that the Trump administration is obstructing Congress, which could be written into the potential articles of impeachment.

CNN source article

The house decided to not follow through and subpeona Bolton. That is on them, not the administration. They subverted a set precedence of legal processes in order to ensure they could claim Trump was obstructing Congress. Reality: they never provided the opportunity for Trump to illegally obstruct Congress. No court decision, no obstruction.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: network dude

Has it come out of Bolton's own mouth yet that what the NYT's insinuates is in his book is ACTUALLY in his book?

The timing is what makes me just a tiny bit suspicious. If nothing like this came out, the Trial would likely be over in a few days. Now, it seems perhaps not. Convenient and shady are two words that come to mind.

Yes, and you know who reviews books for the NSC, Vindman’s twin brother.

that can't be right.

It's what I read on twitter.

I know it's like a soap opera.

And the House Democrats didn’t call him to testify because...? That’s where witnesses are questioned and evidence gathered, not the senate. Oh yeah, it’s to keep the media narrative going with something new each week for the 10 minute attention span of most people, and to sell Bolton’s book.

a reply to: oriondc

no more calls please, we have a winner.

This is leaked from a "draft" of a book.
Drafts contain all kinds of things that get cut from the final book due to lack of truth, validation, research, etc.

This "Leak" is just another Democrat trick and setup 🤣

They get more desperate by the day now and they need some new crisis managers 🤣

Romney just now said he'd like to hear from Bolton after this leak.
No surprise there.