Trump says Bolton could face criminal liability for book

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  54 comments

Trump says Bolton could face criminal liability for book
"A half-century ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar attempt by the Nixon administration to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and since then, it has been firmly established that prior restraints on publication are unconstitutional and un-American,"

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



President Trump said Monday that former national security adviser John Bolton could face criminal liability if his memoir is released, asserting that the book contains classified material.

Eight days before Bolton's tell-all book was set to go on sale, Trump warned that the administration may "soon be in court."

"I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified," he told reporters at the White House. "So that would mean that, if he wrote a book and if the book gets out, he's broken the law, and I would think that he would have criminal problems. I hope so."

Trump's remarks come amid an escalating standoff between the White House and the longtime conservative foreign policy hand, who alleges in his memoir that the president committed "Ukraine-like transgressions" in a number of foreign policy decisions, according to details released by the publisher, Simon & Schuster.

The president is livid about the publication of the book and has been pushing his staff to take action to block it, White House officials said.

Members of the White House Counsel's Office spoke with Justice Department officials Monday about possible legal action, but it was unclear when such an action would happen.

Bolton's book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," is due to go on sale June 23 and has already been shipped to distribution centers across the country.

Bolton's attorney, Charles Cooper, has said that the memoir does not contain any classified material and that Bolton participated in an arduous review process to vet it for material that could endanger national security.

During an exchange with reporters Monday, Trump said it was "highly inappropriate" for his former national security adviser to write the book.

He was joined by Attorney General William P. Barr, who told reporters, "We don't believe Bolton has gone through the process" required to clear books by government officials on topics of national security.

"He hasn't completed the process," Barr said, adding that the administration is now trying to get Bolton to do so.

"This is unprecedented, really," the attorney general said. "I don't know of any book that has been published so quickly while the officeholders are still in government, and it's about very current events, current leaders and current policy issues, many of which are currently classified."

Legal experts said any court challenge by the administration would face stiff odds.

"A half-century ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar attempt by the Nixon administration to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and since then, it has been firmly established that prior restraints on publication are unconstitutional and un-American," said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

Last week, the White House warned Bolton that his book needs further revision to comply with a review process required of government employees writing about national security and intelligence issues.

A letter to Bolton from John A. Eisenberg, a deputy White House counsel, noted that the former national security adviser signed a nondisclosure agreement when he began his White House service in April 2018.

In response, Cooper said his client scrupulously complied with national security vetting requirements. He and Bolton have said from the outset that the book did not contain classified material.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

One thing we can know from this story - Trump has seen the book and knows it will be damaging to his re-election prospects. 

 As the article tells us, Trump cant keep the truth from coming out. There is no "prior restraint"  on books and newspapers and any media. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
One thing we can know from this story - Trump has seen the book and knows it will be damaging to his re-election prospects.

Hey, according to you and your vaunted polls, ain't no way Trump can win anyways, so why on earth would it change anyone's minds about who to vote for?

Which previous-declared Trump voters will this book change the minds of?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    4 weeks ago

Dont you ever have anything else to say besides criticizing people who say something bad about your hero, Donald J Trump? The utter monotony of most of your comments on this forum is astonishing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

I know the sheer irony of your post is completely lost to you.

And way to deflect and not answer anything posed to you because you have no answer!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

Comments removed no value/ personal. Please get back to the topic.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.6  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    4 weeks ago
Hey, according to you and your vaunted polls, ain't no way Trump can win anyways, so why on earth would it change anyone's minds about who to vote for?

That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's a non sequitur.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  cjcold @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's a non sequitur.

Making sense has never been a requirement.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

Par for the course.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

Sorry I don't have enough crayons to explain it to you.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
One thing we can know from this story - Trump has seen the book and knows it will be damaging to his re-election prospects. 

I have no idea if President Trump has personally seen the book or not.  Can you direct me to the verbiage that indicates he specifically has?  Or, is that just a hunch by a Trump hater?

 As the article tells us, Trump cant keep the truth from coming out. There is no "prior restraint"  on books and newspapers and any media.

Maybe you and the writer of the article need to know a little bit about things that are called and NDA.  That's the acronym for Non Disclosure Agreement.   It's signed by anyone that has or had a security clearance granted by any agency or department of the United States Government.  It's a life time commitment, by the way.

Now there IS a means to get something published about your personal history with the US Government.  It's simply going through the procedures and protocols established by the agency or department that granted your clearance.  And, before you ask, yes, that's from personal knowledge.

In my case, I had to submit my resume to an internal department called "Publication Review Board".  They reviewed it, made several suggestions for verbiage changes and flat out denied a few references, which when combined with other information could be construed as divulging TS/SCI information.  After the changes were made, it was reviewed once again and I got a green light for sending it to potential employers.

Other people have done the same with books.  In fact anyone that was a former CIA staff officer and has ever written a book about his/her life or experiences at the agency has done the same.

Now, as to what transpires in the Oval Office, anything, allow me to repeat that so there is no misunderstanding, ANYTHING said by POTUS or any discussions one has by POTUS is classified.  Period, end of story.  Much will be declassified with the disposition of Presidential papers and such, but individuals and what they discussed are for the individuals involved classified and subject to the NDA they signed when they accepted the position.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    4 weeks ago
Trump's remarks come amid an escalating standoff between the White House and the longtime conservative foreign policy hand, who alleges in his memoir that the president committed "Ukraine-like transgressions" in a number of foreign policy decisions, according to details released by the publisher, Simon & Schuster.

That doesn't sound good. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    4 weeks ago
That doesn't sound good.

I can "allege" all sorts of shit to JR.  Hell, I can allege President Trump haters are smart.  Just because it's "alleged" doesn't make it correct, especially since it isn't.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.2    4 weeks ago
I can allege President Trump haters are smart

Well that's obvious, no allegation necessary. That's like saying water is allegedly wet.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.2    4 weeks ago
I can "allege" all sorts of shit to JR.  Hell, I can allege President Trump haters are smart.  Just because it's "alleged" doesn't make it correct, especially since it isn't.

How would you know if what Bolton alleges about Trump is correct or not? We have to see what the allegations and evidence are and decide. Since Bolton was in the room for many critical discussions, one supposes he has knowledge of what went on. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    4 weeks ago
Since Bolton was in the room for many critical discussions, one supposes he has knowledge of what went on.

Of course Bolton's knowledge of Trump's negotiations is probably also the reason that Senate Republicans were terrified to call him as a witness during impeachment proceedings.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.3    4 weeks ago
That's like saying water is allegedly wet.

Water CAN be allegedly wet.  Obviously you've never heard of 'empty water'.

See what I mean about Trump haters?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    4 weeks ago
How would you know if what Bolton alleges about Trump is correct or not? We have to see what the allegations and evidence are and decide. Since Bolton was in the room for many critical discussions, one supposes he has knowledge of what went on. 

What he "alleges" is just that ALLEGATIONS.   That's just like the Russia collusion bullshit.

al·le·ga·tion

/ˌaləˈɡāSH(ə)n/

noun

  • 1.a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof:
 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.6    4 weeks ago
Obviously you've never heard of 'empty water'.

Silica coated water beads are no longer "water" no matter how badly you wish it were. "Empty water " or "Dry water" is only 95% water. Perhaps Trump supporters heads are 95% empty which is why someone might imagine them to be the same thing.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     4 weeks ago

Publish the book and let the chips fall where they may. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1  It Is ME  replied to  Kavika @3    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @3.1    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Comment removed as per warning.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @3    4 weeks ago
Cooper said in a statement:
On December 30, 2019, I submitted, on behalf of Ambassador Bolton, a book manuscript to the National Security Council’s Records Management Division for standard prepublication security review for classified information. As explained in my cover letter to Ellen J. Knight, Senior Director of the Records Management Division, we submitted the manuscript notwithstanding our firm belief that the manuscript contained no information that could reasonably be considered classified and on the assurance that the ‘process of reviewing submitted materials is restricted to those career government officials and employees regularly charged with responsibility for such reviews’ and the ‘contents of Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript will not be reviewed or otherwise disclosed to any personals not regularly involved in that process. A copy of my December 30 letter is attached. It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript.

So yes, the NSCRMD vetted the book.  Simon & Schuster and their lawyers and ViacomCBS and their lawyers

have approved the book for publication and sale on June 23,2020.

Bolton has as much chance of going to jail as Hillary Clinton or Bill Barr.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @3.2    4 weeks ago
So yes, the NSCRMD vetted the book. 

It was submitted.   There is NO indication in your quote that there was any approval from NSCRMD.   Good try.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

No try. Bolton needs permission from every agency he had clearance from.  In the current atmosphere he will never get it, which means the book gets published with a ton of redactions,

or

He publishes unredacted  and everyone goes to court resulting in Bolton losing any advance money and any revenues from book sales per current case law.  Simon& Schuster and ViacomCBS have the final say on how & when the book is released.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/did-john-bolton-outfox-himself-on-his-own-tell-all-book

384

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @3.2.2    4 weeks ago
Bolton losing any advance money and any revenues from book sales per current case law. 

And if CLASSIFIED materials are divulged, he CAN go to prison.

But let's get back to your "vetted" claim.

Once again, it was submitted but never approved.  Hell per AG Barr, they indicated redactions had to be made.  If those classified redactions were not made, Mr. Bolton can be an a deep pile of shit.

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

Read the link?

 
 
 
cjcold
3.3  cjcold  replied to  Kavika @3    4 weeks ago

Can't wait to read it. If Trump and Barr are this worried it's bound to be seriously damaging.

I've read a few of the other insider books on the Trump WH and none of them paint a pretty picture of Trump or his cronies. 

Also looking forward to his niece's tell all book which is coming out right after Bolton's.

When it rains it pours. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @3.3    4 weeks ago

I'm waiting for Melanias' which I hope we see in 2021.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4  FLYNAVY1    4 weeks ago

What harm could one little book do....?  

It continues to amaze me why the right continues to be so scared of those that buy their ink by the barrel.....

 
 
 
MUVA
5  MUVA    4 weeks ago

Let the book come out and lets see what the guy that some on the left called a warmonger and a bastard and many other aspersions.I will then go and look at said aspersions (comments) in previous articles  about Bolton and take them to heart and treat his book as a total lie using the lefts own words as the reason I will still vote Trump.  

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @5    4 weeks ago
"...lets see what the guy that some on the left called a warmonger and a bastard and many other aspersions."

I won't deny any point you made about Bolton, but just maybe it might dawn on you as to how bad the current administration is if the rest of us are finding a useful benchmark to indicate how much to the extreme right Trump has taken those that support him.  I've never supported Bolton and his neocon stance, but he is way more responsible as an adult in the room then Trump is.  But of course.... you'll still vote for Trump, no matter how far to the left the Right Wing Bolton is right now.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.1  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @5.1    4 weeks ago

I was going to believe Bolton but the left convinced me he isn’t trust worthy.

 
 
 
cjcold
5.2  cjcold  replied to  MUVA @5    4 weeks ago

So folk can't dislike Bolton and Trump at the same time? Why not? I find it easy to do.

The world is a little more complicated than this 'either/or' premise you propose.

Of course that black or white worldview is the way Trump operates so...……....

I do so love it when republicans eat their own. A regular Trump pastime.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.2.1  MUVA  replied to  cjcold @5.2    4 weeks ago

I’m on a diet l.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @5    4 weeks ago
treat his book as a total lie

Just because the left called Bolton a "warmonger"? I haven't heard many accuse him of lying, he's always just been a hawk when it comes to the middle east and believes American intervention was and is warranted. That in no way makes him a "liar". From what I've seen Bolton, while distasteful to some for pro-war positions, had been a 'by the book' national security advisor which would of course clash with the seething corruption that now engulfs the white house. But go ahead, disbelieve him out of some sad unwarranted partisan pride and determination to defend the indefensible.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.3.1  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3    4 weeks ago

No some called him far worse than a liar and lefts argument was so compelling against Bolton I could never believe a word he printed.

 
 
 
Ender
6  Ender    4 weeks ago

Not to be too far off topic but donalds niece is coming out with a book as well. When her father died they were screwed out of inheritance.

Never liked Bolton. A weird day when certain republicans will turn on anyone that dares to say anything negative about donald. They have moved so far to the right everything they see is a dark red.

It is getting to the point one cannot even call them republicans anymore.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1  cjcold  replied to  Ender @6    4 weeks ago

The split between the semi-sane republicans and the completely insane far right began with Rush, Glenn, Fox and then the avalanche of far right blogs.

The insane were given a voice and It proved very profitable for Rupert Murdoch.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  cjcold @6.1    4 weeks ago

I think it goes all way back to the "Fairness Doctrine" eliminated under Regan.  While it might not have been applicable to cable broadcasts, I can't help but think it gave a green light to start those same conservative talking heads that you listed.  Up to then... every licensed broadcaster had to devote time for discussion of controversial issues and had to make a concerted effort to express contrasting viewpoints. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

I don't think it was the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, though it may have played a part. I think it was the creation of the 24 hour cable news channel. News started making way to infotainment and this spread to networks and morning shows.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.3  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

Yep it sucked.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

I'll buy into a piece of that EG.... The first Gulf War is what put CNN on the map with their 24 hour a day updates.  Once the hunger for 24 hour news became evident.... others jumped on the train.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.5  cjcold  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.1    4 weeks ago

I always saw the fairness doctrine as flawed constitutionally but, yes, that was the beginning of far right wing media propaganda outlets.

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1.6  evilgenius  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.4    4 weeks ago

I cringe every time one of those talking heads says, "This is what that means." 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  cjcold @6.1.5    4 weeks ago

We can't even agree on the facts/data, nor the source of the facts/data anymore.  Given the noise from the internet with the lies that can go around the world in seconds.... 

I say let the book come out.....  The fact that Trump is scared of it speaks volumes.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.9  MUVA  replied to  cjcold @6.1.5    4 weeks ago

It was the beginning of the end of one sided reporting and leftist propaganda.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.10  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @6.1.9    4 weeks ago

You do know that Cronkite was very conservative.... right? 

You'd never know it because he reported facts as did Huntly, Brinkly, Chancellor, and Safer  Today the names are Stahl, Mitchel and Holt.

Leftist propaganda my ass...  Ignorance comes from listening to the outright PROVEN lies of Rush, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly.

The easily led accept the Fox Et Al lies because the homework to refute them is too much effort.  Call it intellectual laziness. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Let's remember, Donald Trump has seen the contents of this book , and had the implications of the book explained to him by his political advisers.  THAT is why he is worried about "classified " information. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

100100572_23844805430800275_1505143852632113152_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=67cdda&_nc_ohc=bKQd7Uf4oZUAX88JHDU&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=63205addd15f05d8c01873bc1537b268&oe=5F0EECE7

 
 
 
Tessylo
9  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

99127643_126645272363195_267955703858069504_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=1cb0a9&_nc_ohc=6SEaeo0TsgoAX-OhKBW&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&_nc_tp=6&oh=1150b17af73d4a384b787d63c691f43c&oe=5F0F7953

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




33 visitors