Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton bombshell
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Four big takeaways from the explosive John Bolton bombshell
JANUARY 27, 2020
(Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)We have now learned precisely what John Bolton is prepared to tell us about President Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme. This is terribly inconvenient for Republican Senators who are frantically searching for ways to vote against hearing from Trump’s former national security adviser and any others who can shed fresh light on Trump’s corrupt conduct.
After all, new revelations might complicate their preordained vote for acquittal, and that must not happen before that vote is cast.
Bolton writes in an unpublished manuscript of his new book that Trump personally told him he was withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until officials there carried out the political dirty deeds he was demanding, the New York Times reports .
According to Bolton, he and Trump discussed the matter in August 2019, when Bolton and others were urging Trump to release the aid. Trump said he preferred not to until Ukrainian officials turned over materials related to two false theories — one involving invented Joe Biden corruption in Ukraine , the other concerning fabricated Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
This directly undercuts one of Trump’s key defenses — that the aid wasn’t frozen to coerce Ukraine into doing his political bidding. Here are four key takeaways:
Trump rage-tweeted that he “NEVER” told Bolton the aid was tied to those investigations, and reiterated that the transcript of his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky exonerated him.
Nonsense. First, remember that Trump’s extortion demand was conveyed to Zelensky. This actually happened . Ambassador Gordon Sondland told a top Zelensky aide that the money was indeed conditioned on those investigations.
Trump’s propagandists claim Sondland freelanced this, based on his declaration that he merely “presumed” a link. That was always absurd: Sondland took direction from Trump throughout, and Sondland even testified that Trump told him to convey to Zelensky that he must do Trump’s bidding, even as Zelensky was desperate for the money.
But now we have Bolton prepared to testify that Trump himself directly confirmed this link to him, wrecking the “hearsay” defense. If Bolton were lying, you’d think Trump would want him to testify under oath, since Bolton’s account is set to appear in a book. Unless the game is to prevent his testimony to the Senate before the vote on Trump’s fate.
Separately, the transcript just does show Trump using the power of his office to pressure Zelensky. Trump cannot make this disappear through disinformation. And so, his actual claim is that there’s nothing wrong with having done this.
Bolton’s lawyer says he provided the manuscript to the White House on Dec. 30 for classification review — nearly a month ago.
Importantly, the Times reports that the manuscript may have given Trump’s lawyers a preview of what Bolton would testify. Note:
It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying, according to two people familiar with their concerns.
It appears Trump’s team wanted to block Bolton’s testimony for the express reason that Bolton would further incriminate Trump.
Trump’s lawyers have claimed at his trial that “not a single witness” has “testified” to “any connection” between the aid and the investigations. This weasel language is telling: If it’s true that no witness has testified to this, it’s precisely because Trump blocked witnesses who could testify to it, such as Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
We now know Bolton actually would testify to this, which illustrates that the only way to make that defense technically true is for Trump and GOP Senators to prevent him from testifying. Thus, that defense has been reduced to smoldering wreckage.
Ned Price, a National Security Council official from 2014 to 2017, told me that internal declassification processes in such cases suggest it’s likely Trump’s legal team did indeed access Bolton’s manuscript.
Bolton’s lawyer submitted it to the Records Management Directorate in the White House. Price pointed out that the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, is leading Trump’s impeachment defense, which likely means Cipollone did get his hands on it.
It was also widely known publicly that Bolton was shopping the manuscript around and that he’d indicated a willingness to testify at Trump’s trial — three weeks ago .
“The White House counsel has tremendous reach inside any White House, especially this one,” Price told me. “It’s within the purview of the White House counsel to review records in the possession of the executive office of the president. It’s almost certain he would have sought the manuscript.”
Jack Goldsmith, a White House lawyer under former president George W. Bush, adds that such manuscripts generally are internally circulated “widely.”
So it’s very likely the White House knows exactly how Bolton would further incriminate Trump — and that this is exactly why Trump doesn’t want him to testify.
GOP Senators may seize on Trump’s latest tweets to claim that, since he denies Bolton’s account, there’s no reason to hear from Bolton, reports CNN’s Manu Raju:
Many Senate Rs will very likely point to this tweet to say they don’t need to hear from Bolton since Trump denies it https://t.co/x3ITSfBbw7
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 27, 2020
This would be insane. The very fact that there is a dispute over something so absolutely central to Trump’s conduct should make GOP Senators want to hear from Bolton, since they themselves think of him as credible, and this would allow them to judge his testimony for themselves.
Taking the contrary position would be tantamount to saying we don’t need to hear from witnesses who contradict Trump’s protestations of innocence for the sole reason that the truth is what Trump says it is.
At this point, of course, this really is the position of many Trump defenders. But there is no longer any denying that any GOP Senator who goes along with this is willfully and knowingly carrying Trump’s coverup to completion.
When it comes to hearing new witnesses and evidence, GOP Senators have no arguments left. And no one is obliged to pretend there’s a shred of legitimacy to whatever excuses they do offer.
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
Silly kids. Its merely coincidence that Hunter sat on the board. Nothing to see there. People get high paying positions concerning shit they know nothing about all of the time, especially overseas.
Not really ANY people.
Usually its just people with elitist connections. Like people who's daddy just happens to be VPOTUS.
Leaving John/Susie Q Public out in the dark once again ......
Just like it's just coincidence that Ivanka was granted 3 new trademarks the day she dined with her daddy and the Chinese president ... although she had claimed she would shut down her business. Trademarks she's gotten from the Chinese include one for voting machines, of all things.
Nothing to see there, right?
Yes, very unsettling but if that unsettles you. So should deals like Hunter Bidens.
You can't have your cake and eat it to.
Hunter got a job that he wasn't qualified for, but that doesn't rise to the level of what Ivanka did. Hell, Ivanka has a job that she isn't qualified for, and her daddy gave her a top secret clearance against all intelligence advice. That's a lot worse.
Interesting rationalizations for an intelligent person such as yourself.
Evidence?
Lutsenko stated that Hunter Biden broke NO laws in Ukraine.
Since the Prosecutor General of Ukraine 'exonerated' Hunter Biden, he obviously did so after his office looked into the issue.
So since we're comparing Hunter Biden and Ivanka Trump, WHEN will the AG look into the issue of Ivanka Trump using here position AND taxpayer funds to enrich herself?
Of course, the next time someone posts that particular fact, he'll screech about evidence again.
It's a trolling tactic, clearly.
That's all a handful of posters have to offer here.
Okay, since you seem to have such faith in Ukrainians now, you would do well to remember that President Zelensky has clearly stated he and Trump never had the "quid pro quo" discussion that is at the center of this impeachment case.
But that hasn't stopped this leftist impeachment meltdown one iota has it?
Classic partisan bias.
'Okay, since you seem to have such faith in Ukrainians now, you would do well to remember that President Zelensky has clearly stated he and Trump never had the "quid pro quo" discussion that is at the center of this impeachment case.'
Of course Zelensky said that while tRump was effectively holding him hostage.
That's a fine fairy tale... glad it works for you.
Fairy tale...?
Sounds like damn logic and common sense to me.
Yes, in some cases i understand it might ....
Ah, deflection.
Why not address the content of my comment instead?
BTFW, it sure as hell looks like Trump and Giuliani have WAY more faith in Ukrainians that I do. THEY are the ones that wanted Ukraine to investigate American citizens.
Yeah you would call it that but i understand why you might try to call it that. Since it shows the bias at work here in your argument
Why would i since it was clearly only a "deflection" on your part.
You can't have your cake and eat it to .....
How does YOUR deflection show bias in MY argument Sparty?
We were taking about Hunter and Ivanka and you deflect to Zelensky. You also FAILED to answer the question I asked. Your comment was a defection. OWN it.
Again, we were taking about Hunter and Ivanka and my question was based on that issue. HOW is that a deflection Sparty?
Hint: It's NOT.
Why not, you certainly seem to be insisting that you can...
Speaking of classic partisan bias, where is the outrage from the right about the surveillance of the Ambassador to the Ukraine? No FISA warrant, no nothing but Trump playing dictator. Yet nothing but crickets despite the total outrage over Carter Page.
What deflection? Yours? I never made one Dulay. My comment clearly counterpointed yours. You hang your hat on what the Ukrainian AG says and i point out that the AG's comment is clearly irrelevant because his boss claims it never happened. And yet you fail to consider that. Own IT!
I was talking about Biden. Someone else deflected to Ivanka. As to your deflection why she was never investigated you'd have to ask Barr that Dulay.
Sure it is. OWN IT!
I'm not the one trying to do that Dulay. Own It!
I don't think you want to go the surveillance route. Not without indicting the Obama admin in a much, much bigger way.
You remember all THAT right?
think her point might be
.
Where's the damn outrage when Trump plays dicktator tot
It isn't worth my time to argue with someone who refuses to accept reality.
And if thats an issue with some here today, where was their outrage all the times similar things or worse, happened during the Obama admin?
Drip, drip, dripping hypocrisy in here ..... woot
My thoughts exactly in your case as well.
See we can agree on something.
Similar things and worse things, DIDN'T happen during the Obama administration.
Illegal surveillance of an ambassador is much worse than anything the Obama administration did. But no outrage from the right - because nothing Trump does will ever bother them.
Bullshit..................
Like Zelensky is going to say tRump did anything wrong while effectively holding him hostage.
Even Presidents still have to follow the law, and having an Ambassador surveilled for political reasons rather than for national security reasons doesn't cut it.
I can't believe you're actually defending this surveillance.
But ... then per you, Obama didn't need the warrants anyway, so why are you so concerned with any surveillance he put in place?
You might want to let Ukraine know that, since they've opened a criminal investigation into the possible surveillance of the ambassador.
Of course you know that was the reason right? /s
That is pure supposition, innuendo, palm reading.
thought you were brewing Maxwell House
Hypocrisy... good to the last we can you can't
Warning, women who are preg...
and what does your crystal ball say...
Really? The president can unilaterally order surveillance on an American without going through a legal process?
That is very hard for me to believe.
Apparently you haven't bothered reading facts about it. Unsurprising. You'll do anything to defend your orange idol. And it's hilarious how you accept all his lies and innuendo as fact while refusing to believe actual facts.
The Koolaid is strong for the TDS people. Denial isn't healthy when used in such large quantities.
What facts are you referring to? Zelensky himself said there was no quid pro quo. See post #1.2.27 and read allllll about it. Short term memory seems to run rampant in the TDS ward of NT.
Please site that law and its parameters.
I suppose you feel that the NSA and FBI violating specific civil liberty protections, of ALL AMERICANS during the Obama administration was just ..... O.K. ..... i could go on but i know it falls on deaf ears so there is no point.
Keep rafting down the river of denial but i hope you are wearing a PFD .... you're gonna need it.
I don't think the President is legally allowed to spy on anyone, including ambassadors, without going through a legal process. I haven't found anything to support your claim, and I have tried. Please provide something to back it up. Spying is far different that "watching over" - have you bothered to read the information that's come out about this surveillance?
Trump is NOT above the law, and I find it very sad that you support his desire to be a dictator. I wonder if you'll be so defensive when a Democratic president abuses his/her power the way Trump abuses his.
Well then, you better start working to indict Bush and Obama as well then. Likely other Presidents as well. All have done just that.
I think the people being "watched over" might disagree with you .... including you if you were being "watched over."
You'll have to actually have proof, and that would not be the lies Trump and the gop have been telling about Trump being 'spied' on. If you take away the bullshit, you'll know there WAS NO ILLEGAL SPYING BY OBAMA. Bush either as far as I know. Put up or stfu. With truth.
The "proof" is clearly out there to anyone who isn't a totally biased fool.
A simple google search brings up a plethora of "proof" but there is really no point to putting it up here to the closed minded. Regardless, here's one, even though it won't matter. Not to a bunch of biased, whiny little babies who admitted on 11-09-16 they would never accept Trump no matter what he does or doesn't do.
I'm sure that group of myopic, crybabies really enjoyed being surveilled during the Obama admin. That's how obtuse that group of dumbasses is.
That said, go lecture someone else who gives a shit about your opinion .....
It won't do any good.
They're working on all their rationalizations right now why our links are all wrong.
Such is the Newstalker BMOC shuffle .....
Of course he said there was no quid pro quo while being held hostage.
Great talking point from the hive but the worker drones could use some new material. Time to report back in ....... buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz .....
Damn it. You need to read some of the posts put up here. He first said it last October. Well after Ukraine got the money. He WASN"T being held hostage by any stretch. Get a new Shtick. That one is worn out pretty badly.
Like Zelensky would disagree with tRump while he was being held hostage .
Exactly. This is one of their most ignorant and just blatantly stupid defenses. "The guy we extorted and still haven't given a white house meeting to who is still at war and desperate for American financial support since we fund 10% of their defenses just said he didn't feel any pressure. So it's all good, nothing to see here...". I really have to wonder about a brain that would accept that as a viable defense.
[deleted] By law, Ukraine gets the funding that Congress approves. Trump be damned. BY LAW!!!
But they DIDN'T Jim.
It took a SECOND act of Congress to release the funds that they approved in the 2019 budget.
'Just like it's just coincidence that Ivanka was granted 3 new trademarks the day she dined with her daddy and the Chinese president ... although she had claimed she would shut down her business. Trademarks she's gotten from the Chinese include one for voting machines, of all things.
Nothing to see there, right?'
The hive, your usual nonsense.
No, damn it, I DON'T
Whining about posts you don’t agree with. Your usual useless drivel.
A good friend of mine went to Yale with him. What does he think of Bolton?
"He's a dick! The guy would do ANYTHING to sell his book."
[deleted]
I'm not sure what you think calling Bolton a "dick" accomplishes.
Lol, simmer down and read it again John. Then you can change your post to something more honest.
I couldn't have been more clear.
I know, and I replied to it.
[deleted]
The only reason you are not calling Bolton a dick is because he said something bad about Trump.
Lol. And vice versa
I think he's a dick as well.
That does not exclude me from wanting to hear what the dick has to sa... spit out , cause my wanting all the facts so as one can make an informed decision and or conclusion as to what actually happened over rides party, and or 'dicks' . It is pretty damn obvious before Bolton butted in with his FIRST HAND COMPLETE OPPOSITE RENDITION of what Trump has stated, and is consistent with what we've heard those testify state, Trump example, an Administrator readily ADMIT to already, that Trumpp DID atempt to leverage the dude whose name begins with Z.
.
And before any want to say the house should have investigated him, his underling with who he shares an attorney, has already sued and taken to court the House, and it's been almost a year.
The GOP Senate, with their party over country Bull Ship, is just downright FCKN ridiculous at this point.
Hippo critical clowns, like their fearstricken leader, are not true Americans in my eyes, as if this were ANY other potUS, be they Libertarian, Democratic, or Independent, I would CERTAINLY want ALL of the Evidence, but as i've seen enough already, it wouldn't matter.
For ANY President to attempt to pull off what Trump has, I would DEFINITELY want them REMOVED from office, but hey, i'm silly when it comes to our leaders having morals and ethics, and wanting them to obey OUR OWN DAMN LAWS, but, that's just Me.
A good friend of mine, went Yale with your good friend, and said he was a dick.
[deleted]
Sparty, saying that individual people here have "TDS" is a coc violation. At least three coc violations have been given out for just that reason recently.
You are directly suggesting that Larry has "TDS". I suggest you stop unless you want coc tickets.
I disagree but feel free to report it .... it'll be like Christmas morning for you if it gets deleted
I can prove my "good friend" exists, about as much as you can yours.
[deleted]
I wonder how many people went to school with Trump and came out of it thinking he is a dick.
All of them?
Really John? An extrapolation of the Peewee Herman "i know you are but what am i" gambit.
You can do better .....
I was just wondering why you thought it was meaningful to say one of your friends thinks John Bolton is a dick.
His own mother allegedly said he's a moron and an asshole, but he is her SON. Hoped he'd never get into politics as it would be a disaster.
Because he has a friend who’s brother’s sister said she knew someone who ,,,,
Seen it before. Someone trying to gain points by claiming to have an “insider scoop”.
Too little, too late, and what Bolton said cannot be corroborated by trusted sources.
The vote to acquit might come as early as the end of this week.
Direct testimony that would show Trump is guilty ( if you believe Bolton) is "too little too late"? LOL. Well at least you are consistent Greg.
Mueller report failed, IG report failed, House inquiry failed because an impeachable crime was not committed.
Every dirty thing the Trump haters have tried has failed, as will this "January Surprise"
Let the voters decide, the Dems don't have the numbers or suitable candidate to beat him
No way will there be 67 votes to remove Trump from office.
Once cleared, he will apologize for making an inappropriate phone call, and resume campaigning for reelection.
[deleted]
They had a 100 more times the evidence than was brought against Clinton.
You can put your head in the sand, and attempt spin, but there is so much evidence and just because some don't wish to see it ( say like our R Senators) it does not mean it does not exist. It has just been IGNORED.
Ahhhh - makes sense. Guess that's why Clinton was charged with 11 counts and Trump only two - because of the "100 more times the evidence".
Do you recall a guy named Kenneth Star, you know, the one who had a few years to build a case against Slick Willy.
Trumpp s behavior has proven we don't have time for a few year investigation.
And YOU DO UNDERSTAND,
Trumpp
could have had MANY MORE ARTICLES charged against him.
The Dems tried to keep it simple, so as Trumpp supporters could still follow, even though they have still proven incapable.
If Starr had been against Trump instead of for him Trump would have nicknamed him Snoozy Starr. His presentation today was a bore fest of monumental proportions.
First you screech that there isn't enough firsthand evidence. Now that there is firsthand evidence, you refuse to accept it.
Trump supporters are allergic to facts, it seems.
As they become more and more painted into a corner, their ultimate rationale (Trump must be protected no matter what) is becoming more disturbing.
[deleted]
LOL. How is that kool aid?
removed for context
I was referring to Bolton, who, in my opinion, is lying.
What first hand evidence? If it came out of Bolton's mouth, it's a lie - it's hearsay, innuendo, "what if's", or "I thought".
You need to look at Bolton's history - he's a very hated person and a very, very egotistical person who will stretch a lie to its fullest extent.
Its so weird that you will say that about Bolton but wont say it about Trump, who it applies to much more.
How do you explain that?
Funny how anyone who can attest to Trump's misdeeds is automatically dismissed as a liar or a bad person - yet Trump, who lies more than anyone and is a terrible person, is always given a free pass. I'd sure believe Bolton's testimony over any of Trump's idiotic, lying tweets.
I've never heard or read of a lie that can be attributed to Trump.
And why do you consider him to be a terrible person? You sound a tad judgmental.
Apparently, you avoid any sources that present facts. Over 10,000 lies since he's been in office and you've managed to avoid hearing about a single one of them - that's impressive willful ignorance!
Oh, please. Again - apparently you avoid factual sources. Or is defrauding students, stiffing small businesses, bringing his wife and mistress to the same ski resort at the same time, running a fraudulent charity, doing his best to increase the divide in America, sucking up to evil dictators not qualify a person as terrible in your mind?
Yeah, for some reason, con men irritate me. I happen to be a fan of ethics and morals, but I understand that these are anathema to Trump's base.
Could be that I'm staying on topic - something the two of you need to do - by discussing Bolton.
Try it - you might like it.
And since Trump happens to be the TOPIC of Bolton's words, he is relevant. Trump is a liar over literally everything. I don't even like Bolton, but he is believable. Central to the topic here.
Ahhhh reminiscing..................
Comey? Talk about irrelevant! And I never said that about Comey, so wtf?
Bolton's book states that Trump told him this, face to face. That is first hand evidence.
You're welcome.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Bolton worked for Trump, the man who epitomizes that description.
The GOP rammed Bolton into the UN. To this day, he is entitled to the most elevated position he has held in the government and they call him Ambassador Bolton. Most of the GOP cheered when Bolton brought his unique version of 'diplomacy' to that position.
Most of Trump's supporters here cheered when Bolton was brought on board exactly because he's hated [by liberals], very egotistical and a National security hawk.
No one should have to tolerate such blatant and comical bamboozling on a discussion forum.
No one forced you to do anything.
It is your choice, and to complain about it seems stupid.
Greg, have you seen a tv news show (not Fox) or read a newspaper in the past four years?
Oh, we are forced to tolerate it. Anyone who responds to him the way his comment actually merits, they will be deleted.
says one complaining...
Quick, tell me who is forcing you and I will give the cops a call to come rescue you!
You are free to leave.
Bolton is believable???? Only when he wants the U.S. to go to war with everyone on the planet Earth.
Sorry, but since Trump is the biggest liar in the history of the country, have to choose Bolton as the one closest to the truth. Put them both under oath.
The righties will eat their own young if they bruise Trump's massive ego.
Then you wouldn't have anywhere to whine because it's John's seed.
Bolton was trusted by conservatives, till he didn't mindlessly repeat the narrative Trump sycophants developed in an effort to protect their Dear leader.
And all the civil servants who testified corroborated the claims made. The idea that anyone who doesn't get in line and do as they're told are somehow no longer to be trusted is just sad. Trump is channeling Stalin in his peerless paranoia.
You perfectly describe all the sycophant enablers lining up to get their daily load of lies from their Dear Leader dishonest [Donald.deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
1. Guilty, 2. Guilty, 3. Guilty, 4. Guilty. That is what I take away from the constant lies and refusal to turn over documents or call witnesses. No innocent person would refuse the evidence to truly exonerate them.
Never been in a court of law have you? People are told to stay silent all the time and withhold witnesses if the prosecution turns out to be a pack of morons set on self destruction.
The Democrats are the pack of morons set on self destruction in case you missed it.
Projection
If any of this so called bombshell was valid, the Dems would have had Bolton release it long ago since Bolton already had it in the manuscript.
The bigger question should be, who leaked the manuscript...the same person who told Feinstein about Ms.Blasey Ford?
We were told that the pro-impeachment crowd will try to slip in some of these last minute "gotcha now" assertions.
Again...too little, too late....the people are aware of the Dems tactics by now.
Too little too late? So crimes by a president can't be addressed once a case for the crimes is laid out? And new info is irrelevant? In what world is ignoring crimes ever a good thing? If more comes out, it needs addressed. Unless they don't want the truth to come out. Surprise.
Yes. The "evidence" presented was enough for the House to draft and approve two articles of impeachment. Meaning, they (snicker) found him guilty with what they have. No more evidence should be needed from Johnny Come Lately's now that the House has concluded and presented their cut and dried (snicker) evidence. Slam dunk right? RIGHT?
You won't be laughing when it comes out despite Trump and his cult's attempts to keep it all suppressed. Americans hear it and that is what matters. They will hear the truth no matter how hard republicans try to stop it because the idiot is such a security breach anybody in the room with him can record him at will. Can you imagine what Putin has? I remember when the gop went apeshit over emails. Now we just wait for another piece of evidence to hit the light.
But yet his underling ambassador in Ukraine is off limits and can't be surveilled by her boss???? Where I have worked, the "bosses" have ways to do basically the same thing with emails, files in the computer even up to recording key strokes (only one dumbass did that and thought he'd get mileage out of it.
Again,
"We have now learned precisely what John Bolton is prepared to tell us about President Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme."
There is ONLY two things we've learned from this. Someone leaked this incomplete MEMO to a Newspaper, and Innuendo and Conjecture is STILL ALIVE !
"The identical twin brother of Democratic impeachment witness Alexander Vindman, Yevgeny Vindman, is reportedly in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former officials at the National Security Council (NSC)",), according to Breitbart News, which would include the recently leaked manuscript of former National Security adviser John Bolton.
The report describes the reviews as a "standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication."
Breitbart notes that the Vindman brothers have offices across from each other at the NSC, and that the Wall Street Journal describes Vindman as "an NSC lawyer handling ethics issues." Alexander Vindman, meanwhile, has said that his brother was the "lead ethics official" at the agency.
Vindman’s twin brother Yevgeny is also an Army lieutenant colonel rank who works in the White House as part of the National Security Council, according to the Times. He is a lawyer handling ethics issues, and his office is across from Vindman’s.
Weird !
Lol ..... to channel a left wing tactic ..... these two must be Ukrainian spies. I think they report to the Tulsi Gabbard spy ring .....
The Americans ..... part 2 ..........
The "Brothers Grimm" Folklore !