Patterico's Pontifications

1/26/2020

Breaking from NYT: Bolton’s Book Says Trump Explicitly Tied Ukraine Aid to Biden Investigation Announcement

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:40 pm



Here’s your guy with firsthand knowledge:

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

It’s not just Trump’s head on the chopping block either:

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

I believe Bolton over Barr.

I told you: this stuff is all coming out eventually, whether Republicans try to prevent it from during the impeachment trial or not. If they vote against hearing witnesses and then those witnesses add significantly to the already high mountain of evidence of Trump’s guilt, it’s not a good look for Senate Republicans.

71 Responses to “Breaking from NYT: Bolton’s Book Says Trump Explicitly Tied Ukraine Aid to Biden Investigation Announcement”

  1. I think this strongly changes the calculus in favor of witnesses (at least Bolton) being called.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Bolton really needs to testify under oath where he’s subject to cross examination.

    Any argument that he can’t because of executive privilege goes out when he starts putting the information into op-eds and books.

    Trump took what Obama did to stone wall and cranked it up a few notches. But enough is enough, congress is supposed to be a check on the executive branch. That’s not feasible when oversight can be stymied by legal challenges until the questions become moot.

    Unfortunately both parties want to use maximum executive power when they have the presidency so it never happens.

    Time123 (14b920)

  3. Yes, this is explosive. Hello, Trump defenders, how are you, today? You wanted non-hearsay evidence, here’s non-hearsay evidence.

    nk (1d9030)

  4. 1. Maybe it does, but I wouldn’t be so sure. As someone pointed out to me the other day, Bush and Reagan both carried water for Nixon right up until the bitter end. Those who didn’t went on to find themselves left in the dustbin of Republican electoral history. How Trump’s (all but sure) refusal to resign a la Nixon influences this calculus is anyone’s best guess; I’m simply thinking that the Senate Republicans, in particular, remember what happened to Tricky Dick and are planning accordingly.

    Gryph (08c844)

  5. Leaking parts of a draft to the NYT? Bolton is trying to protect Trump, motivated (I suspect) by his desire to protect and extend presidential power in general. He’s always had a robust view of what Presidents should be able to do.

    If Bolton actually wanted the truth to get out, all he would need to do is call up anyone at the news networks and offer an exclusive interview. Or write an op-ed for the WP or NYT giving the pertinent details. He doesn’t need to wait for a Congressional subpoena.

    Kishnevi (fe0b52)

  6. Maggie Haberman? Ohhhhhhh… that Maggie Haberman.

    Munroe (dd4ac5)

  7. 5. I don’t know how leaking this draft, such as it is, would even protect Trump. This looks to me like a rather desperate move on Bolton’s part. It’s hard to imagine Bolton being willing to sacrifice himself for Trump, but there’s a lot about Trump worship that doesn’t make sense to me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  8. @5. Yep. Walrus Gumbo craves a future in the GOP and right now, he’s a neocon on the beach an on the outs as it’s Trump’s GOP. So he’s playing a long game keeping lines in the water for a post-Trump era gig.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  9. If not Maggie Haberman, then who? Sean Hannity? Breitbart News? I know, I know, Scott Adams! He would give it to us illustrated.

    nk (1d9030)

  10. I knew this would come out, but I’m surprised it’s so soon.
    Bolton’s timing is interesting. On the day before the Senate began its session, Bolton announced that he would be willing to testify in a Senate trial if subpoenaed.
    Then today, after the Democrats made their case and two hours into the Republicans’ opening statement, and after Republicans felt confident that no witnesses would be called, we’re getting this explosive news.
    This will only increase the demands that he take the stand under oath, and if McConnell doesn’t let him testify, the charges of a cover-up become more and more valid.
    Even if the White House ixnays the book in the pre-publication process, and even if McConnell keeps Bolton out of Senate chambers, there’s nothing stopping the ex-NSA from going on Tapper to tell his story, and it would probably happen sooner than later, given how we’re already hearing about his book.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  11. 5. I don’t know how leaking this draft, such as it is, would even protect Trump

    Leaking it this way allows for deniability, and gives McConnell wiggle room to keep him from actually testifying.

    Kishnevi (fe0b52)

  12. Paul, it’s all a plan by the secret DemocRat John Bolton, to ensure that they win the next presidential and sweep all purple states to take have complete and total control of the government. He’s been a lifelong Bernie bro, he’s been a long term DemocRat plant.

    Or everything that everyone knows about Trump is true, he’s a bad at crime, business, but an idiot genius conman convincing rubes that their eyes and ears don’t reflect reality.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  13. 11. Pardon me, but I still don’t get it. Kish, I’m not a lawyer or a politician but I do know that this is not a criminal proceeding and the senators are not sequestered. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from voting according to what they find out about outside of the proceedings.

    Gryph (08c844)

  14. You’re probably right, Klink, about he second part.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  15. I told you: this stuff is all coming out eventually

    Yep, and knowing that it’s coming out eventually, Team Orange could well have leaked this themselves as part of a modified limited hangout.

    The timing is ideal since the Dems have finished their opening arguments and Trump’s paid liars can “pre-but” Bolton and get a head start on gaslighting his eventual testimony or interview.

    Dave (2c186f)

  16. Deniability, Gryph. Senators can claim they don’t pay attention to anonymous claims in the NYT.

    Kishnevi (fe0b52)

  17. 16. Bulls**t. I know you’re smart enough to know better. I just wish more of the electorate was.

    Gryph (08c844)

  18. “If not Maggie Haberman, then who?”

    Jason Leopold

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  19. Leaks to the NYT give a perfect pretext to ignore it. And if the book itself doesn’t get published until Mid November 2020, “oh, that’s the breaks, and sorry the White House insisted that I had leave some parts out.”

    It is BS. But none of us are US Senators, to the best of my knowledge.

    My working theory is that Bolton firmly believes in a strong Presidency, and is trying to do nothing that would weaken the office in some way. Going public now would hurt the Presidency, so he won’t.

    Kishnevi (fe0b52)

  20. Pat…have you not learned by now about these leaks? Especially to the NYTs?

    The Times, particularly this author don’t really have a sterling reputation with regards to Trump.

    I would employ the 48-hr rule before blessing this leak as factual.

    whembly (c30c83)

  21. Pat…have you not learned by now about these leaks? Especially to the NYTs?

    The Times, particularly this author don’t really have a sterling reputation with regards to Trump.

    I would employ the 48-hr rule before blessing this leak as factual.

    Do as you like. I find it credible and would happily put money on it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  22. Why in the world would we doubt it, we all know Trump did it, he stood on the lawn and admitted it, asked the Chinese to do it too. Released a “transcript” confirming it. Bolton confirming that the sky is blue and water is wet isn’t really a big deal.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (5cde89)

  23. It’s hard not to be a bit skeptical about this unless and until there’s a lot more evidence and a lot more facts. I know lots of people were predicting a Kavanaugh treatment – proceedings looking like they’re through and then drip drip dripping of allegations to extend the process and see if drama can be wrung out of it. What will be equally interesting is how Senators will take Alan Dershowitz’s presentation and use it in combination with any Bolton-related information. Whether any of this is decent or whether it’s uncouth, I’ve agreed with Dershowitz so far.

    Lazlo Toth (cbb623)

  24. Of course it is true. It is what Trump said in his “perfect” call. It is what Mulvaney said before he had to take it back. It is why the Senate Republicans are covering their ears while yelling they know nothing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  25. I’ve agreed with Dershowitz so far.

    We can all agree with Dershowitz, since at various times he has taken categorical, yet diametrically opposite, positions on the question he claims to be an expert on.

    The question is which Dershowitz do you agree with?

    Dave (1bb933)

  26. Lazlo Toth (cbb623) — 1/26/2020 @ 8:01 pm

    I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Toth, but his comment is a goid example of the excuses the GOP can make to help Trump avoid accountability.

    Kishnevi (fe0b52)

  27. Maggie Haberman? Ohhhhhhh…

    Can we dispense with the ad homs now? AP just confirmed the story and it’s just a matter of time before other outlets follow suit.
    https://apnews.com/cd54bcd8a665c5de800120af57852679

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  28. “ Seated at the back of the class, Mitt Romney looked dutiful, and the thought must have crossed his mind that’s he’s in a position to inflict payback on Trump for calling him ‘a pompous ass’ and tricking him into an interview for secretary of state only to humiliate him. (Revenge is a dish best served with milk.)” – Maureen Dowd

    Nullify an election over a perceived slight. That New York Times?

    Well, it did work for McCain and Obamacare.
    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  29. Can we dispense with the ad homs now?

    What a silly question.

    The ad homs will just shift from Haberman to Bolton.

    The article you linked already contains the first salvo of the smear campaign:

    Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who has played a prominent role in the Ukraine affair, replied to a request for comment with a text: “I used to like and respect John and tell people they were wrong about how irresponsible he was. I was wrong.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  30. Another nugget in the AP piece:

    The book’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, declined to comment.

    Sarah Tinsley, an adviser to Bolton, said: “The ambassador’s manuscript was transmitted to the White House in hard copy several weeks ago for pre-publication review by the NSC. The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period.”

    Dave (1bb933)

  31. I’ve agreed with Dershowitz so far.

    Hell, The Dersh doesn’t even agree with himself. The only bigger ass in America is stitched to the King Kong exhibit at Universal Orlando.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhvFPujolsw

    “Let’s go to the videotape!” – Warner Wolf, sportscaster, WABC-TV/WNBC-TV, NYC

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. The ad homs will just shift from Haberman to Bolton

    That’s true, which is yet one more reason to put him under oath.

    Paul Montagu (e1b5a7)

  33. Stephen Miller
    @redsteeze
    Every Acela corridor journalist reading The NY Times story like Ralphie using his secret decoder ring only to learn its to hype his book sales on Amazon.
    __ _

    cmaklaw
    @texasmamma777
    ·
    Drink your Ovaltine!

    _

    harkin (d6cfee)

  34. Aren’t you assuming this leak came from Bolton, kishnevi? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t.

    It is also true that Bolton could give interviews or release an excerpt from his book … but he does it at his peril if he talks about something classified. Congressional testimony has safeguards to protect witnesses and the nation if the topics might reveal classified information. Interviews and books do not unless the topics have been cleared as outlined in the link.

    Your theory still works but it isn’t Bolton protecting the Presidency. It is Trump protecting Trump by daring the GOP to believe the NYT.

    DRJ (15874d)

  35. Plus, this information is nothing new. Trump thinks he did nothing wrong. He views this as about power, not truth.

    DRJ (15874d)

  36. And yes,it could also be a third party in the government who leaked it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  37. Walrus has always been a #NeverTrump hero, as of about October.

    If Roy Moore had dirt on Trump, #NeverTrump would swoon.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  38. So Trump fans are saying you can’t trust the NYT here…

    Do you agree that we must hear from Bolton then? If your criticism of this story is that it’s not reliable about such an important claim, obviously the nation deserves to hear from Bolton, right?

    A few days ago I think the GOP argument was ‘The house had their chance to get this testimony so let’s just not bother… we have all the evidence we need.’ But it sounds like the concern today is that the information we have isn’t reliable enough.

    Therefore, this leak seems to change things a lot. It’s new information that the House seemingly did not have, with a specific source. The only reason not to pursue it is that we do not believe the truth is relevant to a purely partisan effort to shield a corrupt administration.

    Dustin (b8d6d1)

  39. Trump is doubling-down:

    I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the…

    …transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems. Additionally, I met with President Zelensky at the United Nations…

    …(Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations – and far ahead of schedule. I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration.

    Dana (aaddb1)

  40. Perhaps Bolton’s book is why Pelosi delayed the impeachment referral. The reports indicate it was finished and in hard copy several weeks ago, with only the Records Management review (for classified information) remaining.

    DRJ (15874d)

  41. The only reason not to pursue it is that we do not believe the truth is relevant to a purely partisan effort to shield a corrupt administration.

    …another reason for an unwillingness to pursue this and hear from Bolton is to provide cover for Trump.

    Dana (aaddb1)

  42. Cue Republican Senators saying they aren’t interested in calling Bolton so he can sell more books.

    DRJ (15874d)

  43. @38 The idea that Trump fans want the truth or care about it is hilarious.

    JRH (6c1595)

  44. Kind of like the very notion of Trump having any conception of “right” or “wrong.” Cute concepts but very outdated. There’s a war on, haven’t you heard?

    JRH (6c1595)

  45. A simple apology for creating the appearance of a quid pro quo from Trump would have made this go away and him look good. But Donald is not capable of that under any terms. This makes him easy prey for his opponents. I think there will be several books scheduled for Spring/Summer release from Bolton, Mattis, Tillerson and perhaps others who were asked by Trump to serve and treated like dirt. It won’t be revenge, but a sense of duty to point out Donald’s lack of character and qualifications to be President. Simply calling them Names will just make him look small.

    dirtyjobsguy (96cdc8)

  46. JRH (6c1595) — 1/27/2020 @ 2:44 am

    If the notion that Schiff or NeverTrump do and that helps you feel better then good luck with that.

    frosty (f27e97)

  47. @46, I want the Truth. Not sure what group you lump me in but I’d like as much certainty about this as possible.

    Time123 (441f53)

  48. Yet again, new information makes Trump look more guilty, not less. No one seems to be leaking anything exculpatory.

    But this could be false, Bolton, Mulveny, Barr and Pompeo should testify under oath and provide any supporting documents. That’s the best way to find out. Throw Biden in as well. Why the hell not.

    Time123 (441f53)

  49. Because when #NeverTrump got the Truth about collusion, they moved on … to the next fishing expedition.

    It must be highly motivating that the face of your quest for Truth is Schiff.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  50. In their zeal to exonerate or not convict Trump, the Senate Republicans are indicting themselves. And voters are watching.

    I have no doubt that Trump directed the withholding of aide to Ukraine, most likely at the instigation of Giuliani. They both have long connections with corrupt oligarchs going all the way back to the 1980s.

    Bolton may be a lot of things, but he is not pro-Russia. So I don’t believe he would have agreed to withholding military aide to a beleaguered ally, certainly not on condition of an announcement for investigations into domestic political rivals. It’s one thing to invite and welcome foreign interference in an election, which is about as un-American as it gets. It’s another thing entirely to coerce foreign interference from an ally at war with and under invasion from a geopolitical rival, for personal political benefit.

    That’s treason and bribery, and both are high crimes and misdemeanors, subject to impeachment. Abuse of office, obstruction of justice and/or Congress, which has oversight authority, violations of the emoluments clause, self-dealing, corruption, money laundering, dereliction of duty, failure to follow lawful or Constitutional orders, demeaning the republic, lowering the discourse to the junior high level, embarrassing the United States on the global stage, name one high crime and misdemeanor Trump has not committed.

    Of course, Bolton should be called to testify. So should Mulvaney. And Parnas and Giuliani.

    But that’s not likely to happen. Trump will just claim executive privilege. Giuliani will cleain lawyer-client privilege. And that’s that. The Senate Republicans will vote to acquit, to their immortal shame.

    What is it with this investigations into the Bidens anyway? It’s not like Biden is a serious threat. He’s run for president twice before, and he never won a single primary. He hasn’t won a primary yet on this third run, and he’s losing in the polls.

    So why obsess over his nomination? Not that Sanders or Warren or any of the others would be a more electable opponent.

    The only reason is that Trump is running scared. He still can’t believe he won the nomination or the election. Now he has to run a serious campaign for re-election.

    Oh, he has his crowds at rallies. He has he defenders and excusers, butt gerbils of fraud all of them.

    But it gets worse. The Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, went on the market last month. And the MAGA crowd is freaking out.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hotel-sale-has-dc-maga-groupies-scared-about-losing-their-safe-space?ref=home

    Why this should surprise anyone is beyond me. Trump is doing what he has always done; sell his name, short-change contractors, bankrupt investors, hire foreigners on visas over Americans.

    It’s the scam over and over again. Trump is a total fraud.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  51. President Trump told his national security adviser in August

    Tis is probably the August 30 meeting in the Oval Office with Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper with President Donald Trump at which they argued that the hold on the aid should be lifted. In the course of which Secretary of state Mike Pompeo read out loud from the cable sent a day or two before by Acting and former Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor to the state Department at the suggestion pf John Bolton. It was probably not a meeting that John Bolton alone had with President Trump earlier in August, because Gordon Sondland had not yet talked about linking the military assistance to investigations that Trump wanted. (actually, to be precise, Trump did not want investigations. He wanted the results of investigations. He wanted answers/)

    In the cable, Bill Taylor described the conditions Sondland was imposing as “a political errand”

    Like so many other things, this is probably a distortion of what the original source says..

    What we can say is this:

    After President Zelensky’s aide, Andrey Yermak, texted Ambassador Volker a link to the Auust 28 Politico news story entitled: “Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia” saying they needed to talk, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland became aware that Ukraine knew about the hold, which he had never mentioned to them before.

    At that point Gordon Sondland began telling other people in the U.S. government, that the aid was, or should be, a quid pro quo to restore the funding.

    He probably did this to make sure he had the backing of colleagues and superiors, or at least did not get overruled, before approaching the Ukraianians with this idea. He says now he approached them on Sept 1 in Warsaw but this is probably a mistake (Andrey Yermak denies that) and he probably didn’t broach the idea until about September 5.

    Now earlier, when Sondland was telling other people in the U.S. government that there was this quid ro quo, probably to see if he got pushback, one of those people who got told this was Ambassador Taylor. John Bolton was visiting Kiev at the time, and he told Bill Taylor to wrote a (rare) first person cable to the State Department protesting against this. This cable explicitly assumed there was this quid pro quo for the aid and called it crazy to do that. (the exact text of this cable is one of the most important items that Schiff would like the Senate to get)

    While he didn’t get feedback except through the grapevine, and we don’t have sworn testimony or public statements as to that, we can safely assume that Secretary of state Mike Pompeo read out loud from the cable sent to President Trump, and that’s probably at this August 30, 2019 meeting.

    Even though Bill Taylor described the conditions Sondland was imposing as “a political errand” Trump was not moved.

    Does this mean that Trump agreed to to have such a quid pro quo at that point?

    Trump more likely said that there was no legitimate reason for Ukraine not to investigate what Biden did, and not doing so would be a sign of protecting corruption. But he probably also indicated that that would not be a sufficient condition to lift the hold.

    The hold was not lifted until September 11, after there began an uproar in Congress (which was not solely caused by Adam Schiff or the whistle-blower like he likes to say *) but Trump was already telling senator Ron Johnson on August 31 that he [he said they] was reviewing it now (no formal review took place) and that the Senator would likely be happy with his decision.

    * Schiff is not taking credit for the whistleblower complaint and tries to deny he caused it t be made.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  52. @47 I don’t lump and I don’t personally identify with a group. If someone self identifies, and many do, that’s up to them but they’re delegating a lot of their critical thinking to “the group”.

    frosty (f27e97)

  53. For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt

    We know that. she was told that Pompeo had been protecting her but he was able to protect her no longer. At least as far as keeping her in that job. Now I don’t think Trump knows that, or understands that.

    and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

    I haven’t heard before anything about Bolton’s speculation as to Pompeo’s thoughts about Giuliani

    Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

    The issue seems to be only did he mention then anything directly to Barr about Trump mentioning Barr as a agent during a phone call with Zelensky Bolton was not present for the call, having expected it not to amount to much.

    I believe Bolton over Barr.

    We don’t know yet exactly what Bolton says.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  54. I told you: this stuff is all coming out eventually, whether Republicans try to prevent it from during the impeachment trial or not.

    By leaking this just now, they’re giving Trump’s legal team a chance to respond. You;d think they’d want to wait a week.

    Of course, they’re also putting pressure on the Senators to vote to hear Bolton and making preparaton for campaigning against them on the grounds they did not.

    and t mght also be that what Bolton has to say s a little bit different than what is being implied It’s being implied even that this proposed quid pro quo existed before August 29 and that Trump always knew of it.

    If they vote against hearing witnesses and then those witnesses add significantly to the already high mountain of evidence of Trump’s guilt, it’s not a good look for Senate Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  55. @53, I don’t believe anything a member of this administration says unless they’re under oath and subject to cross examination. This administration is amazingly inaccurate with their public statements.

    Time123 (653992)

  56. I think this strongly changes the calculus in favor of witnesses (at least Bolton) being called.

    I hope so.

    And if Bolton, and Giuliani, are not called now, they’ll probably be called later, but there won’t be such a strong pressure on Trump not to go to court to fight their testifying.

    And Parnas and Lutsenko (Lutsenko would come, at least in a super publicized forum)

    And Trump could then get Joe and Hunter Biden and the whisteblower, and oh, boy would Trump love to see Adam Schiff cross examined about the impeachment investigation. (it won’t happen) One thing Trump keeps referring to is the time Adam Schiff read to a television audience a made up version of his July 25 telephone call with Zelensky </ after they had the transcript.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  57. @Time123 Testimony is much better than second hand leaks that are not even Bolton’s own words.

    You’re correct thsi undermines executive privilege, because, although it is involved by the president, it is supposed to protect his advisers from public calumny, and it is entirely up to he adviser whether to say anything or not, under oath or not under oath

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  58. 3. nk (1d9030) — 1/26/2020 @ 6:08 pm

    You wanted non-hearsay evidence, here’s non-hearsay evidence.

    What we have so far is the very definition of hearsay. Somebody saying that Bolton wrote something in a book and not even giving exact quotes.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  59. Kishnevi (fe0b52) — 1/26/2020 @ 6:10 pm

    If Bolton actually wanted the truth to get out, all he would need to do is call up anyone at the news networks and offer an exclusive interview. Or write an op-ed for the WP or NYT giving the pertinent details. He doesn’t need to wait for a Congressional subpoena.

    He might be in legal trouble if he says something on his own as opposed to because he’s been subpoeaned. But I can’t see if that’s the case. why he would write something that he doesn’t feel he’s on quite solid legal ground in revealing.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  60. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ambassador-bolton-withdraw-your-book-fred-fleitz

    I take Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times. But I believe they are still responsible for this leak since Bolton’s explosive book was sent to the leak-prone National Security Council for a security review in December 2019 so the book could be published in the spring of 2020. It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process. Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain.

    There’s also the publisher and his literary agent plus people working for them.

    Then he argues it should wait till after the election like former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did in 2012. But is that good?

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  61. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html

    r. 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.

    He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none…

    …Mr. Bolton would like to testify for several reasons, according to associates. He believes he has relevant information, and he has also expressed concern that if his account of the Ukraine affair emerges only after the trial, he will be accused of holding back to increase his book sales.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  62. Sure, I wouldn’t mind having the full transcript made public. I suggest that impeachment proceedings be halted until such time as the manuscript is offered in toto to all, and a deposition is conducted involving both the Congress and legal counsel as appointed by the Executive counsel.Then we start again in the House, where new articles of impeachment are voted upon and transmitted to the Senate. The House had the opportunity the opportunity to compel Bolton’s testimony, but that withdrew their subpoena once litigation began.

    So, by all means, let’s go. Because Maggie has been the truth and nothing but. One might wonder how a prosecutor would consider such “evidence”, and its veracity if the same were to occur during a trial. I’m willing to bet a good deal of money that they might smell dead fish and act accordingly. But as I understand it, Drumph!, so all is well.

    All4One (46cb3f)

  63. If Bolton testifies, that book, or the relevant sections of it, will come up. It’ll be included ina subpoena. I think the protocol for calling witnesses calls for (closed door?) depositions first.

    In any other kind of trial this evidence (which at this stage is hearsay) wouldn’t be considered, but here we have statements at press conferences, too – which is not bad.

    The big problem is things that mentioned in the media but not in the trial.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  64. Ann Althouse said:

    Why can’t John Bolton’s publisher just release the book ahead of schedule so we’re not subjected to second-hand reports of what’s in it?

    It’s scheduled for release on March 17.

    According to the New York Times:

    [T]he president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  65. ‘President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.’

    Can’t help but chuckle as life imitates art: this brings to mind one of my all-time favorite movies:

    “I’m going to tell the truth.” – Miles Kendig [Walter Matthau] ‘Hopscotch’ 1980

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. Here is the AP version:

    President Donald Trump said he wanted to maintain a freeze on military assistance to Ukraine until it aided political investigations into his Democratic rivals, former national security adviser John Bolton recounts in a draft of his forthcoming book…Bolton’s account was….confirmed to The Associated Press by a person familiar with the manuscript on the condition of anonymity to discuss the book, “The Room Where It Happened; A White House Memoir,” ahead of its release March 17.

    This isn’t exactly the New York Times account, which talks about “nvestigations into Democrats including the Bidens.”

    and we have “a person familiar with the manuscript on the condition of anonymity” as a source.

    One thing: We’ve had bad (false) leaks before, like about what was in the July 25 call.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  67. Movies on TV and Videocassette 1989-19990 by Steven H. Scheuer on the movie Hopscotch:

    Tailored for the pouty charms of Matthau as a renegade CIA man out to expose the dangerous idiocies of the Company. Director Ronald Neame allows the story to poke along, but it’s an amiable entertainment. (104 mins)

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  68. That book was sent to a section of the White House for a classification review but that doesn’t necessrily, or probably, mean that it was seen by any of the people named in that book.

    Sammy Finkelman (083d4c)

  69. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480278-schumer-slams-absurd-gop-proposal-to-read-bolton-manuscript-in-classified

    Lankford said in an interview Tuesday morning that he is in talks with the White House to make the manuscript available to the Senate.

    When asked about Schumer’s criticism, Lankford said the manuscript must be made available in the SCIF because it hasn’t finished going through the declassification process.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  70. It’s more or less what I said in November: (modified a bit)

    After Bolton testifies:

    The picture’s now not so grainy,
    Although it may sound very zany,

    No One was told
    That the aid was on hold [No Ukrainians were told, that is*]

    And the deal was cooked up by Mulvaney! * Although they knew anyway, but only because of leaks, and they didn’t tell their interlocutors.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  71. Their interlocutors knew that they knew after August 28.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3019 secs.