It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.