Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations

mark46 said:

In the end, there is sn insufficient number of senators prepared to convict, even if everything the Democrats say is true. They simply won't make Trump the first president removed from office.

So, IMHO, none of this matters except as part of the campaign.

Click to expand...

Information for the voting public ...

Mathetes66 said:

anonymous source for a book that hasn't even begun to be fully written let alone published? And who is ignorant enough to believe that one? Not me.

Click to expand...

It's on pre-order at Amazon ... due to become available to the buying public in March ...

Bolton's manuscript leaks as memoir pre-orders begin on Amazon; Trump fires back

Online merchants began taking orders for Bolton's book, entitled "The Room Where It Happened," just as the Times' story broke, with a March release date.

DavidPT said:

Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. So how can Bolton actually prove 100% that Trump told him that? Does he have that on tape? Does Bolton have any reason to have it out for Trump, thus could be fabricating this in order to get even with Trump maybe?

Click to expand...

Sounds like the sort of questions the GOP Senate would be asking after letting him testify. If they actually cared about the answers, of course.

A_Thinker said:

It's on pre-order at Amazon ... due to become available to the buying public in March ...

Bolton's manuscript leaks as memoir pre-orders begin on Amazon; Trump fires back

Online merchants began taking orders for Bolton's book, entitled "The Room Where It Happened," just as the Times' story broke, with a March release date.

Click to expand...

......the Senate can ignore the evidence in waiting...but the truth will eventually come out.

wing2000 said:

......the Senate can ignore the evidence in waiting...but the truth will eventually come out.

Click to expand...

And it won't make any difference. I think we all know what the truth is now. Trump put the muscle on Zelensky to cause trouble for someone his supporters hate. It's just a question of whether you approve of that kind of thing, and those lines have already been drawn.

Speedwell said:

And it won't make any difference. I think we all know what the truth is now.

Click to expand...

Sorry but WE ALL know you have no right to speak for ALL.

Bobber said:

Sorry but WE ALL know you have no right to speak for ALL.

Click to expand...

Yes, I wouldn't want to usurp a right which Trump supporters reserve for themselves. But I was not speaking for you. I was giving as my opinion that you know what Trump did. Are you denying that Trump put pressure on Zelensky to investigate the Bidens? Are there no Conservatives who think that was a good thing to do?

The Times further claimed Bolton had shared a manuscript of his forthcoming book with "close associates" -- prompting Bolton's team to deny the claim, and assert that the National Security Council's [NSC's] review process of pending manuscripts is "corrupted" and prone to leaks.

Click to expand...

The Times article suspect. Even Bolton's team denies the above claim. Second, the NSC gets the pointing finger of the leak according to Bolton's team.

Sarah Tinsley, a senior adviser to Bolton, told Fox News he had submitted a hard copy draft of his manuscript to the NSC several weeks ago for "pre-publication review," but insisted he had not shared it with anyone else. And, in a statement obtained by Fox News, Bolton attorney Charles Cooper lamented that the NSC review process had been "corrupted."
He also provided his letter to the White House concerning the manuscript.

This is a serious 'leak' if it came from the National Security Council of the United States! If we cannot even trust the council concerning our national security, the US is in dire straits.

Second:

Bolton's team declined to "speculate" to Fox News as to how a description of his manuscript might have leaked to the Times. Additionally, Bolton's representatives MADE CLEAR he was not denying the Times' claim concerning the Ukraine aid holdup and the POSSIBLE investigation of the Bidens.

Third:

The drama began earlier Sunday when the Times exclusively REPORTED that Bolton's manuscript included a claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Trump told Bolton in August, according to a transcript of Bolton's forthcoming book reviewed by the Times, "that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped WITH INVESTIGATIONS INTO DEMOCRATS INCLUDING THE BIDENS."

The title of the OP is misleading as even the NYT's article doesn't even say what the OP says & they put it in quotes.

Fourth:

President Trump has not been unwilling to have Bolton testify through this whole process. It would seem if he had something to hide, he would not be so willing. He denies he told Bolton that the aid was tied to an investigation into the Bidens and even the NYT's article shows that much, if it is true, which part of the story isn't, even according to Bolton.

Fifth:

Bolton says he quit; Trump says he was fired. There should be an official paper trail on who is telling the truth on this one. Again someone is lying & someone is telling the truth.

Hopefully we can get to the bottom of the remaining assertions as to which is the truth and which is not. I will not jump to any conclusions at this time and the 'we' all know what the truth is (someone must have a mouse in their pocket) people should wait until their is CONCLUSIVE evidence. But alas, most people are not impartial; their minds are already made up, on both sides of the issue.

Sounds like the sort of questions the GOP Senate would be asking after letting him testify. If they actually cared about the answers, of course.

Click to expand...

Another one of those 'mind readers.' Seems to be a lot of them around lately.

I had be thinking just a few days ago about starting a thread with the title something like,

"What Will Be The Bombshell"

Meaning on the day right before Trump's defence team starts to make their case watch something to be released by opposers of Trump. I suppose that's what politicians do but are we to believe the New York Times haven't really become just a political arm of the Democrat Party. Obviously this whole thing was orchestrated for effect and the release to put pressure on exact moments when the witness issue is considered.

As I said I was expecting out of the blue some new shinny thing what they'd call a bombshell released right before Trump's defence team began.

Then you have leakers within the Government agency whose job it was to scan for information in Bolton's writing to ensure there wasn't anything against National Security. But they go right ahead and leak info to the press of potential things that might have been said?

One wonders where this will all end. If a Democrat became a President again will leakers get away with the same? Or will they be crushed into the dust and prosecuted heavily as it seems like they were under Obama. Don't both President's have a right to insist on legal prosecution? Doesn't seem like they do. It's sad but maybe it's true. Trump's got the deck stacked against him and maybe always has.

I disagree.

More Republicans may indeed say that, upon looking at the evidence, Trump did something wrong. So? 20 Republicans are not, therefore, going to vote to remove Trump from office. They will merely say that Trump did wrong, but not enough to become the first president in the history of the country to be thrown out office.

Kentonio said:

Depends. If John Bolton stands up under oath and says 'Donald Trump directly told me we're holding back aid until they announce an investigation into Joe Biden' then its going to be the biggest news story of the year, and its going to become very difficult for those GOP senators to continue to say 'he did nothing wrong'. If they keep Bolton off the stand then sure acquital is certain, but if he testifies then things could escalate very quickly.

Click to expand...

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

For someone who is willing to have Bolton testify, he sure seems upset at the possibility it might actually happen.

Has anyone considered that Bolton MAY be a disgruntled ex-employee? Trump fired him.

Mathetes66 said:

This is a serious 'leak' if it came from the National Security Council of the United States! If we cannot even trust the council concerning our national security, the US is in dire straits.

Click to expand...

Sad but true. When such an institution allows itself to be politicized then it's taken the nation to a tyrannical place. Of course some Trump opposers would be saying Hurray! When it happens to their side however it will be deemed absolutely diabolical with severe penalties upon the guilty. I guess we can only hope that at least some of them consider such ones should be prosecuted who have done this with Bolton's writing. If there isn't then maybe the nation is lost.

Bobber said:

Sad but true. When such an institution allows itself to be politicized then it's taken the nation to a tyrannical place. Of course some Trump opposers would be saying Hurray! When it happens to their side however it will be deemed absolutely diabolical with severe penalties upon the guilty. I guess we can only hope that at least some of them consider such ones should be prosecuted who have done this with Bolton's writing. If there isn't then maybe the nation is lost.

Click to expand...

Is there anybody in the admnistration on Trump's side?

Steve97 said:

Has anyone considered that Bolton MAY be a disgruntled ex-employee? Trump fired him.

Click to expand...

Yes. And that would the defence's legal response that this witness is potentially hostile and prejudiced against the accused. This is recognized in legal precedent in many such cases.

And even considering what Bolton states. What's the nature of his evidence. His presumption or his guess like that of Sonderland? And for the fact that this comes out to sell copies of his book....it also draws suspicion as to the credibility of the argument.

Speedwell said:

Is there anybody in the admnistration on Trump's side?

Click to expand...

You forget if they were they'd have to publicly discuss the details of the case. Consider that they're respecting Executive Privilege.

DavidPT said:

Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. So how can Bolton actually prove 100% that Trump told him that? Does he have that on tape? Does Bolton have any reason to have it out for Trump, thus could be fabricating this in order to get even with Trump maybe?

Click to expand...

As the managers have shown in several videos when presenting the evidence, Trump himself has already admitted withholding the money in public statements, explaining to reporters that the reason for doing so was out of concern over "corruption", and then adding that the Ukraine would investigate Biden if they weren't corrupt. This is ridiculous. Bolton should not have to prove what the President told him is true when Trump has already said it publicly and it has been corroborated over and over in texts from ambassadors Volker, Sondland, and Taylor as well as from Lev Parnas who was working for Guiliani.

Ask yourself why the President's defense doesn't have to prove the accusation that the only reason the House Democrats in the house voted to impeach Trump was because they hate him?

Steve97 said:

Has anyone considered that Bolton MAY be a disgruntled ex-employee? Trump fired him.

Click to expand...

Actually he resigned, Trump just claimed afterwards that he'd fired him because he always needs to feel like he's in control.

mark46 said:

I disagree.

More Republicans may indeed say that, upon looking at the evidence, Trump did something wrong. So? 20 Republicans are not, therefore, going to vote to remove Trump from office. They will merely say that Trump did wrong, but not enough to become the first president in the history of the country to be thrown out office.

Click to expand...

Republicans still have to think about their own re-elections, no matter how much Trump threatens them. It's one thing to turn a blind eye, but its quite another to vote acquit if the headlines are splashing proof of guilt in everyone's faces.

I don't think 20 of them will turn, but if Bolton testifies at least it goes from being an impossibility to merely being extremely unlikely. One testimony that lands Trump in hot water could easily lead to more. If Bolton says Trump is guilty then there is going to be huge pressure to then hear the testimonies of the likes of Guiliani, Pompeo, Mulvaney etc, and any refusal on their parts then will look stunningly bad.