Bolton is looking for his 15 minutes.

People, don't get in the weeds here. Even if Bolton were to testify under oath to this, it would still not be an impeachable offense.

Dems suddenly like Bolton? Haha

Best thing I've ever seen is when Tucker Carlson called Bolton a neocon war monger to Bolton's 'stache!

a reply to: network dude

I find it disturbing that a big part of the Impeachment narrative is that Trump (supposedly) endangered national security by holding up (for a few weeks) military aid to Ukraine...but meanwhile there seems to be little or no concern that people in positions where they are entrusted with classified information - much of which actually can directly affect national security - leak details to the press, without consequence.

Comey, for example, was quite public about the fact that he kept notes of private conversations with the President...then gave those notes to a College Professor friend of his, specifically so that he would leak them to the press, in hopes of getting a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate the President re. the Russia collusion hoax.

Numerous NSC actors listened in on private conversations between the President of the United States and various other world leaders...then leaked information, or made allegations of wrongdoing in a very public way.

Now Bolton appears poised to profit from his postion as National Security Advisor, by scribing what he alleges are statements made by the President while he held that office.

My questions are as follows:

1) Do these high-level people not have to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements before being given access to classified or privileged information? If so, why is the Adminisration not suing them and getting injunctions to prevent release of this information (in books in particular)?
2) Are there not laws against leaking classified or privileged information? If so, why aren't all of these people being prosecuted?

Nations cannot function if Leadership - including the Chief Executive - cannot have private conversations with top aides, where they throw ideas around, debate the pros and cons of various options, before arriving at a policy position.

I don't know how the quote in Bolton's book actually reads, but my suspicion is that in reality it probably went something like this...President says, "What kind of leverage can we use to get the Ukraine going on looking into the corruption that involved U.S. officials?" He then says, "Should we maybe look at holding up some of the aid money until they get going on some investigations?". Probably one or more people said, "That would not be a really good idea...we should probably just keep encouraging them to do the right thing". The President then says, "Yeah, you're probably right...let's just keep talking to them."

In my (inconsequential) opinion, the Executive Branch should use all of its legal options to (a) prevent Bolton's testimony on any subject due to Executive Privilege and (b) take legal action against him if he writes or talks about any private conversation he had with the President while he was National Security Advisor.

It is incredible how far out of control the swamp has gotten. The FBI lying on FISA applications, so they can spy on a Presidential campaign. A former FBI director admitting to leaking (his versions of) private conversations with the President.

Now a former National Security Advisor, intends to release (his versions of) highly sensitive conversations that he had with the Donald Trump...for his own personal profit, and to damage the sitting President - and likely the Presidency itself.

The DOJ needs to stomp on all of these kinds of activities, or the U.S. is going to be in big trouble...this farce of an impeachment is bad enough...but if top officials are going to be allowed to trade in secrets with impunity, America's ability to function as a world leader is going to be severely hampered.

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.

That's right, trouble here is that I don't think a biased mind can accept any truth, more so, to do so is letting the 'side' down.

I say, "free the 'stache"

Let the Dems get all hopped up and then crushed again. I rather enjoy it when that happens.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Trump denies it

Bolton says it happened. Time to put them both under oath and on the witness stand.

originally posted by: toolgal462
I say, "free the 'stache"

Let the Dems get all hopped up and then crushed again. I rather enjoy it when that happens.

Look, I would be fine with him testifying - IF we get the witnesses Trump's team wants.

But I think it is trending to where the senate votes for each witness, and 4 traitor Republican senators will vote for Bolton, but against Schiff, the whistleblower and the Biden's.

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: toolgal462
I say, "free the 'stache"

Let the Dems get all hopped up and then crushed again. I rather enjoy it when that happens.

Look, I would be fine with him testifying - IF we get the witnesses Trump's team wants.

But I think it is trending to where the senate votes for each witness, and 4 traitor Republican senators will vote for Bolton, but against Schiff, the whistleblower and the Bolton's.

I'm going to admit that this is the part where I'm not sure what the Senate can and cannot do. I'm fairly sure that the Senate can call any witnesses they want, including Adam Schiff. I also understand that Schiff will claim some legal reason why he cannot be called as a witness and then it will go to the courts.

Other than Bolton, who seems to want to testify, I think most witnesses called will try to argue that they have some sort of legal protection and will only testify if compelled to by the court.

I think this was intentional to open up for witnesses so we'll see what comes of it.

a reply to: mobiusmale

I have to agree that after watching Dems and media twist and spin the original July 25 transcript that I can read myself and see it doesn't say what they think it does. I can see Bolton making a reference to this momentous occasion now and a biased individual contacted NYT with their spin on it.

Bolton has not responded officially as to the accuracy as far as I know. His attorney naturally crying foul of the leak. Yet, he has not denied nor clarified for obvious reasons. Even if this is not an accurate spin, he stands to sell more books up front based on the rumor.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fallingdown

Trump denies it

Bolton says it happened. Time to put them both under oath and on the witness stand.

So are you also for Schiff and the Biden's testifying?

Don't try and tell me they aren't relevant because you know that is BS.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fallingdown

Trump denies it

Bolton says it happened. Time to put them both under oath and on the witness stand.

Would not matter unless someone else was willing to testify this happened. As it stands now if Bolton claimed he did say it and Trump says he didnt even under oath either could lie.

Someone else would have had to been in the room. I will say i think its unlikely since Bolton was fired i suspect this would have came up alot earlier than now. Funny rumor hits day before his book goes on sale. Im sure that was just a coincidence

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fallingdown

Trump denies it

Bolton says it happened. Time to put them both under oath and on the witness stand.

If Trump says it didn't happen and Zelensky says it didn't happen, it didn't happen.

Like the fired Michael Cohen, John Bolton might be a big baby too.

The most important thing is Bolton strengthening the call for WITNESSES. The Republican-called witnesses will be more like "Suspects". Lots of fireworks.

a reply to: dragonridr

Bolton probably has a "paper trail", appointment commitments, emails, notes, documents, phone records, etc., to submit.

Also, Bolton released $1.4 Million dollars of the aid, against the President's orders, when the White House Counsel advised his office the hold was probably illegal.

a reply to: carewemust

The only thing Zelenskiy is saying didn't happen, is that he wasn't pushed. He isn't saying the aid wasn't held up, for whatever reason.

probably

probably?
the senate "probably" does not have 67 votes to remove the president
"probably"


cheer on the farce if you like
won't get any closer to 67

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Fallingdown

Trump denies it

Bolton says it happened. Time to put them both under oath and on the witness stand.

So are you also for Schiff and the Biden's testifying?

Don't try and tell me they aren't relevant because you know that is BS.

What ever. I don't really care if they call Schiff and Joe Biden testify. I think what they would have to say would hurt the President's case, really. As far a Hunter? Again, whatever, but I don't see what Hunter Biden has to add to Trump's defense.

If Bolton is called, Mulvaney and Duffy should also be called.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I would like to see that. Can you help a brother out ?

In any case .

How long have you been taking Bolton’s word as gospel ?

Or is it just this one time ?

No, he wants his 15 million dollars from book sales.

A book made old-time lefty Bernie a millionaire

originally posted by: Willtell
No, he wants his 15 million dollars from book sales.

A book made old-time lefty Bernie a millionaire

lol It wasn't a book that made old fraudy Bernie a millionaire.
If Bernie is the nominee I suspect where he really got his millions from will come to light.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ok, I will give the Democratic leadership a bunch of credit for muddying up the waters very effectively.

But

1. The impeachment articles do not charge a crime that is constitutionally valid. Derschowitz is going to make this argument.

2. Even if Trump was considering holding the aid up for investigations.
A. He didn't actually do it - and you can't proclaim someone guilty for thought crimes.
B. He is 100% able to stop foreign aid for any reason
C. Looking into possible corruption for 2016 election interference - or corruption of the leading democratic presidential
candidate is not only in the public interest - It would be wrong if it was not investigated for the future implications of both.