The Bolton Betrayal
There are two things that can be said of Former National Security Adviser John Bolton. He is a man of strong, long held convictions and he is honest to a fault. Based on those convictions, he would seem an unlikely choice for the role of National Security Adviser by a President who was desperately seeking a way to get North Korea to abandon their nuclear intimidation strategy or bring US military forces home from the middle east. Bolton, after all, believes in the use of military might to achieve American interests around the world. I'm not sure why Bolton was chosen, but I am certain about why Bolton was fired:
"On March 19, Bolton told Radio Free Asia that he hopes Trump will follow the Libya model in demanding that North Korea give up its nuclear weapons, and that it could be a “very short meeting” if Kim refuses. But the North Korean leader has regularly cited Libya as an example of why he needs nuclear weapons — to deter a U.S. invasion."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/boltons-ridiculous-libya-model-for-north-korea/
That article in "The American Conservative" nailed it - " There is every reason to assume that Bolton wants to set the U.S. up to fail at the proposed summit, because he sees no value in any diplomatic exchange that doesn’t result in the other side’s surrender. He isn’t interested in a “path to success” because that would involve making concessions to North Korea that he is ideologically incapable of supporting."
That was the end of the line for Bolton. The talks with North Korea effectively sabotaged, Trump was forced to fire him.
Evidently Bolton somehow thought he could run American foreign policy. It was a major setback for the President in his talks with North Korea. Bolton lost his job and it should have ended there. Later, however during the House Impeachment inquiry (or whatever Pelosi chose to call it) we learned of Bolton's views on the President's attempts to get the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens among all things involving the 2016 election. Bolton even indicated that he had a tale to tell. However, as the President's National Security Adviser, the President has every right to prevent Bolton's testimony.
Then it gets even more outrageous. It seems that John Bolton is writing a book about his time as National Security Adviser. Such a book is subject to government review for security concerns. John Bolton is a brilliant man. He knows that the NSC is a nest of anti-Trump Obama holdovers. Alexander Vindman still has his job over there. So, why would Bolton commit his book to scrutiny by the NSC at this time?
A portion was immediately leaked to the New York Times:
"The New York Times reported on Sunday that Bolton wrote that he was told by Trump in August that a hold on nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid was tied to his efforts to pressure Kyiv into assisting with investigations into his political rivals, including former Vice President and presidential candidate Joe Biden. Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper repeatedly pushed Trump to unlock the funds, which were released in September."
"Sarah Tinsley, an adviser to Bolton, told Axios that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sent the draft manuscript only to the White House for a prepublication review by the National Security Council. "The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period," she said."
washingtonexaminer.com/news/bolton-lawyer-blames-book-leak-on-corrupted-review-process
That gave Chuck Schumer and democrats the ammunition to get just enough pressure on moderate Republicans to vote for witnesses, which will drag out a bogus impeachment trial for many months. Of Course even the prospect of witnesses wouldn't have been an issue had the President simply admitted, when he released the transcript of the call, that asking for an investigation of matters related to the 2016 election by the Ukraine was probably not a good idea. As we all know by now, Donald Trump can't ever admit to a mistake so he leaves the democrats with the simple task of proving that it was inappropriate and then blowing it up to the level of an impeachable offense. All unnecessary ammunition left for the President's enemies and all to be used for the purpose of damaging the President's re-election chances.
The question is why has John Bolton done all of this to the President who gave him the job of a lifetime?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
496 visitors
"A manuscript of Bolton's book, which is being published by Simon & Schuster, was submitted to the National Security Council's Records Management Division for a standard prepublication security review for classified information on Dec. 30, according to Cooper, who provided journalists a copy of the accompanying cover letter ."
Rules of civility apply
Article is a bunch of contradictions.
No fan of Bolton, and found him to be the hawk he had portrayed himself to be, but i believe he is patriotic and put, unlike Trumpp, America first.
Absolutely believe him over Trump.
The Senate and it's current deriliction of duty GOP, will only totally screw the Republican party further, if his testimony is blocked.
It will all be out in March, and they don't want to hear about, that which they already know, is the Truth, and the fact that they were, have been, and continue to be,
the enabler of a morally and sometimes financially bankrupt little boy, ethically and ethnically insecure and deficient, respectfully reversed, unless dyslexic.
And when more adventures of the mental midget meddalings meander on out from behind the curtain, obviously non ferrous, nefarious motives exposing the negatives, pictured by any thinking individuals, will be revealed, like repeticiosly hammered on by
de calf by the Golden won that lost what we, as in
US A- LL, have, due to a no surprise party Trump grabbed like a "pussy", and they let him.
Till the gop plants a seed more than fake news deceived, and grows a pear,
our nation will continue in
despair ,tired,
and a retread spinning as they can't grip,as rethread are the strings pulling puppet things tied to wings,
clipped from an Eagle
Well let's face it, thats a low bar. I think I'd believe Charlie Manson over Trump.
yea, that's the ticket
guy, is more believable.
A pronouncement without any explanation?
and put, unlike Trumpp, America first.
Don't you mean unlike the democrats?
Absolutely believe him over Trump.
Even when it comes to something important.
The Senate and it's current deriliction of duty GOP, will only totally screw the Republican party further, if his testimony is blocked.
It is not up to the Senate. He was a National Security Adviser, which means, you know National Security! The President can decline to let him testify.
It will all be out in March
You are waiting for the book? John will be so glad to hear it
the enabler of a morally and sometimes financially bankrupt little boy
I really don't subscribe to your brand of poetry, but thanks for stopping by.
Manson would be a perfect president according to your logic. He tells the truth and whatever else he does is unimportant!
lol, that is not my logic, although i guess we'll never know.
Manson was a mentally defective murderer. Trump has not killed anyone, so he is a better person than Manson was , but he is mentally defective.
he may be, but I can't stand the fucker ever since his recess appt. as ambassador to the UN by a gullible chimpanzee. the only reason POS/POTUS hired him was because he was seen on fox in a televised ass licking contest. I guess he won.
trumpski can't have any rogue witnesses running around. WH puts a lid on his book and pie hole claiming national security.
... it's the botched coverup followed by obstruction of the congressional investigation that matters. the stupid jag-off probably would have been let off the hook by the public if he'd come forward and admitted he fucked up. unfortunately for him, personal accountability is something he has never had to face, until now.
bwah ha ha. scratch one patsy for the upcoming media shit storm. bolton knew what would be coming from the soph-moronic brain of trump via twitter. he's a hawk and it was a decisive first strike by him. WH efforts to contain his information now will play worse than any testimony he could give later. looks like POS/POTUS gets fucked over by DC insider, that also happens to be an ultra conservative republican.
bolton just let trump know that he owns his ass. bolton trumped trump. like the art of that deal? tough shit. karma.
Bolton is not, and will never be President.
Whomever recommended Bolton for the NSC job should be let go as well. Bolton is exactly like Trump; too strong willed for his own good, and never wrong. There is no way the two could ever get along.
The book, and it's timing, is a payback to Trump for firing him. The second he released it for inspection by the NSC it was leaked. He knew that would happen.
The Democrats will never cozy to Bolton; they will use him and then throw him away. After this no Republican president will ever be able to trust him.
Maybe Bolton can talk to Justin Amash who is also committing political suicide.
Virtually every host on Fox praised him to no end when they learned he was being considered for the job. Since dishonest Donald pretty much gets all his advice from them perhaps they should all be fired, no?
Can you give us an example?
Fox's Lou Dobbs previously praised Bolton for “his intellect, his capacity, his experience, his talent,” and lauded him as someone “who has the interest of this country and this president in mind every step of the way.”
Does Fox News run the country? (They do for those with rampant TDDDDS).
Someone, or several people, within Trump's inner circle thought Bolton was a good idea. How could they have such a complete disconnect putting two people who are never wrong in the same room- that held two such divergent views? There is only 1 president- and it isn't Bolton.
Now Hillary and Bolton would have been a match made in hell. Hillary, who never met a war she didn't like and a piss poor judge of people; and Bolton- who would love pushing her into every conflict possible.
That's what you meant by "Fox praised him to no end"? Mere introductions???
Considering the fact that the moron and chief watches Fox nearly 24/7 and apparently gets the vast majority of his policy ideas from them, yes, they are running the country which is why we are currently a laughing stock around the world. He has diminished our standing by at least half and we are no longer leaders, we're runner up followers because of this inept piece of shit bowing to despots and authoritarians all over the globe.
"Enter name here", with his intellect, his capacity, his experience, his talent, who has the interest of this country and this president in mind every step of the way...
But that was just an introduction, now lets get to the true brown nosing...
Seriously? You're having trouble seeing that as "praise"?
No different from the Alexander Vindman's introduction from CNN and MSNBC and don't forget - "it's Lt Colonel!!!"
I dont have any particular use for John Bolton and doubt if he has ever belonged in government.
That is immaterial to his responsibility to tell the truth about what he knows regarding impeachable offenses by trump.
That's funny!
Democrats Didn't Believe anything Bolton said, until they now do !
I recall many Democrats berating Bolton as a dangerous, lunatic war hawk. Now that he's "leaked" his feelings about how butt hurt he is after being fired, he and the MSM/Schumer Schiff Sham Show are BFFs.
I think Vindmans "Twin" (Yevgeny) ....leaked it.
Maybe. I wonder if Yevgeny would also get his whities in a bunch and publicly chastise people who don't address him by his military title. His twin almost went off the deep end!
So many "Possibilities" being thrown out against Trump. Seems fit to bring up "Other" possibilities rebutting the "Lefties" Possibilities.
"I wonder if Yevgeny would also get his whities in a bunch and publicly chastise people who don't address him by his military title. His twin almost went off the deep end!"
He was in the Chambers when his "Twin" was testifying to what he "Felt", so the "Possibility", maybe, I "Feel", could be Real.
According to Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz:
"He said that "all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities" now face the "realistic threat" of enduring "vague charges of abuse or obstruction," and added that a "long list" of presidents have previously been accused of "abuse of power" in various contexts without being formally impeached.
The list included George Washington, who refused to turn over documents related to the Jay Treaty; John Adams, who signed and enforced the so-called "Alien and Sedition Acts"; Thomas Jefferson, who flat-out purchased Louisiana without any kind of congressional authorization whatosever; John Tyler, who notoriously used and abused the veto power; James Polk, who allegedly disregarded the Constitution and usurped the role of Congress; and Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and others would also probably face impeachment using the Democrats' rules, Dershowitz said.
"Abuse of power," he argued, has been a "promiscuously deployed" and "vague" term throughout history. It should remain a merely "political weapon" fit for "campaign rhetoric," Dershowitz said, as it has no standard definition nor meaningful constitutional relevance."
Yep !
Forgive them Lord, for they know ….. NOT .....what they actually are doing !
The enemy of my enemy, is my friend, gambit rarely ends well for those who choose that path in politics
I read an article today written by Andrew McCarthy. In it he offers a suggestion for the possible admission of Bolton's testimony:
"It seems to me that there is an easy way out of this quandary. What I will now propose would neither require nor foreclose the president’s opportunity to call other witnesses, such as the Bidens, the “whistleblower,” et al.
The Senate could pass a resolution that would authorize a four-hour deposition of John Bolton by the Senate Judiciary Committee. There would be 90 minutes of questioning for each side, with the remaining hour reserved for members of the committee to pose questions. To move things along, Chief Justice Roberts would preside, subject to the Judiciary Committee’s review (it is highly unlikely that senators would have reason or gumption to overrule the chief justice on a point of admissibility). The subject would be: What if any communications did Bolton have with Trump on the lone subject of conditioning Ukrainian defense aid on Kyiv’s conduct of investigations? This would respect executive privilege by narrowly limiting the testimony to the only relevant issue, not permitting a fishing expedition into the former national-security adviser’s discussions with the president.
The president’s defense would be able to avoid Bolton’s deposition by stipulating that he would testify that there was a quid pro quo. The president’s defense would also be permitted to renew its call for more witnesses after hearing Bolton’s testimony and deciding whether it was really necessary to extend the trial further for that purpose.
I am betting that either (a) the president’s team would stipulate, since it is probably true and makes no difference to the outcome of the case; or (b) the lack of a difference to the outcome would be so clear after Bolton’s testimony that the president’s team would not press for more witnesses – seeking, instead, to move on to final arguments and a verdict of acquittal. Presumably, the limited testimony, or stipulation to what the testimony would be, would satisfy such Senators as Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski – Republicans said to be leaning toward voting to subpoena Bolton.
By this process, the trial could be wrapped up by early next week. But for now, here’s the question for the president’s team: If you are claiming that there is no quid pro quo, shouldn’t we hear very limited testimony from Biden on that question; or, if you don’t want to have testimony from Biden, shouldn’t we just assume he would testify that there was a quid pro quo?
nationalreview.com/2020/01/impeachment-questions-that-need-answering/
Sad day when a National Security Advisor has to betray the president to uphold the Constitution.
Yeah that would be a sad day.
When did that happen?
The fatal flaw in the premise of this article is the assumption that there is something dishonorable in "betraying" Donald Trump.
I'm sorry if I sound like Lucky Luciano, but as far as I'm concerned betrayal is always dishonorable!
It is synonymous with treachery.
Actually channeling a mobster mentality is very appropriate, when referencing rump's attitude.
Bolton has betrayed the President and not via offering information, but by submitting information to individuals whom he knew would leak it to the media. The information itself is nothing really new. Many Republicans know there was a quid pro quo. The information which was publicized on a Sunday, in the manner that it was by the New York Times was an obvious political stunt to aid the democrats in gaining votes for witnesses to drag out the trial and maybe get some sort of dirt on the President. It was a treacherous act......an act of betrayal!
It is not merely something dishonorable about "betraying" Trump. He is just there in the WH. It is about betraying the office of the President of the United States and as such, his boss...................
who, Putin ?
"His Boss" is not the United States or the constitution which he took an oath to protect. If he stayed silent about known wrongdoing occurring in the oval office, that would be betraying the office of the President. While I don't think much of Bolton's hawkish views, especially when it comes to the middle east, he definitely did the right thing here by refusing to lie for the President.
Putin is old news, because it didn't work out for the Pelosi/Schiff/Schumer Impeachment Show. The most recent Pelosi/Schiff/Schumer shiny object is Ukraine.
Who asked him to? The guy is trying to get a book published. I have heard crickets from Bolton himself about the leak and its veracity. How about you?
And for all intents and purposes, he remained silent .....................so he could sell books. He should have spoken up long before he had time to write the book if he is the man you think he is. THINK FFS
The President didn't commit any wrongdoing. Quid pro quo's are inherent features of foreign policy. Perhaps had Joe Biden not bragged about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his good for nothing, drug addict son, the President wouldn't have been so interested in what was going on.