New York Times: Bolton draft book manuscript says Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to political investigations

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Washington(CNN)President Donald Trump in August told his then-national security adviser John Bolton that he wanted to continue holding military aid to Ukraine until the country helped with investigations into Democrats -- including former Vice President Joe Biden -- the New York Times reported Sunday, citing multiple people's descriptions of an unpublished draft manuscript by Bolton.

Trump's purported statement, as described by Bolton, would directly tie the US military aid freeze with the President's requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his political rivals -- undermining a key pillar of the President's impeachment defense that the two circumstances are unrelated.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/26/politics/bolton-book-ukraine-aid-trump/index.html

This should be enough to flip moderates. But we will have to see.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ROFLMFAO

Should be enough?! The "perfect phone call" should have been enough. And flipping moderates? The best is a majority conviction still. The GOP is a pathetic shell of its former self.

 

[laughing dog]

Bolton is a cowardly asswipe. If he had this information, he should have volunteered to testify in the House, instead of the hiding behind the request for a subpeona.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To clarify, Romney, Murkowski, Collins, and a few more have a vested self-interest in their careers. Romney to one day be President...others to keep their Senatorial jobs. Their ideologies are as disturbed, greedy, and bankrupt as any other Republican. But, their self-intetest is in political survival so they act like they might be moderates in practice.

In this particular case, polling has indicated that nearly 70% of persons are in favor of more witnesses. But this news is yet another bombshell. It should bring the stat up to 75% or make those citizens on the fence more extreme, more noise making opposition to the politicians themselves.

The ramifications go beyond the concrete evidence of a witness as well. The other facet of this revelation is a more abstract inference: Trump disallowed Bolton to testify to Congress in order to cover it up, not for national security. So both articles are substantiated.

If true.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If despite all of this, the Repugs hold the line of no more witnesses and refuse to honestly deal with this impeachment, the Democrats will merely begin again with a new impeachment in the House. It will go on and on until election day if necessary. How this will all pan out is impossible to say, but long term, the GOP will suffer. Lawless and partisan and unreasonable. It will be an interesting year.

 

[Deepak]

To clarify, Romney, Murkowski, Collins, and a few more have a vested self-interest in their careers. Romney to one day be President...others to keep their Senatorial jobs. Their ideologies are as disturbed, greedy, and bankrupt as any other Republican. But, their self-intetest is in political survival so they act like they might be moderates in practice.

Moderates don't exist anymore, and the Trump wing is the only way to victory. For Collins and Murkowski it simply means a bit more hand-wringing before voting with the party.

And Romney isn't going to put up another serious presidential run, he'd be crazy to try.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The New York Times:
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says

Compare this to the following:
Fox News:
Bolton's manuscript leaks as memoir pre-orders begin on Amazon; Trump fires back

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton's team was under fire from the White House and conservative commentators Sunday night, after a report in The New York Times revealed a bombshell excerpt from Bolton's forthcoming book that could prove pivotal in President Trump's impeachment trial -- just as the Amazon product page for the book went live.
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."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bolton sent the draft of the book to the White House on Dec. 30th. Soleimani attack occurs on Jan. 3rd (Jan 2nd in the US I think). Trump authorized attack on Soleimani 7 months prior.

So is this all a coincidence? Or was the attack on Soleimani an attempt to assuage Bolton?

 

[ZiprHead]

Just heard this morning that Bolton said the only people who have seen his manuscript are in the White House where he sent it for vetting. He's claiming someone in the WH leaked it.

I happen to think it's quite possible Bolton himself leaked it for publicity and claiming it was the WH is just icing on the cake.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just heard this morning that Bolton said the only people who have seen his manuscript are in the White House where he sent it for vetting. He's claiming someone in the WH leaked it.

I happen to think it's quite possible Bolton himself leaked it for publicity and claiming it was the WH is just icing on the cake.

The book is unimportant. Getting Bolton on the witness stand under oath is what matters.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Announcing this was also important. It is possible Bolton changed the wording between draft and final version. This puts him in the hot seat, if so. Actually, all Republicans are in the hot seat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just heard this morning that Bolton said the only people who have seen his manuscript are in the White House where he sent it for vetting. He's claiming someone in the WH leaked it.

I happen to think it's quite possible Bolton himself leaked it for publicity and claiming it was the WH is just icing on the cake.

The book is unimportant. Getting Bolton on the witness stand under oath is what matters.

Sen. Cornyn is now adjusting the argument back to 'Well, the investigation didn't happen, Ukraine got their money (some)... nothing to see here.'

In the past, we'd say 'what if this were Obama'... and I wonder "had Clinton been elected to the White House in 2016 and this happened..." she'd already been removed from office. But the GOP clearly has no intention of holding Trump accountable for his actions.

Oddly, in the same breath, Sen. Cornyn says the Dems have a "credibility problem"... because of excerpts released from a draft of a book by a staunch Republican to the NSA got leaked to the press somewhere. Where would the Dems even get their paws on this?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just heard this morning that Bolton said the only people who have seen his manuscript are in the White House where he sent it for vetting. He's claiming someone in the WH leaked it.

I happen to think it's quite possible Bolton himself leaked it for publicity and claiming it was the WH is just icing on the cake.

The book is unimportant. Getting Bolton on the witness stand under oath is what matters.

Sen. Cornyn is now adjusting the argument back to 'Well, the investigation didn't happen, Ukraine got their money (some)... nothing to see here.'

In the past, we'd say 'what if this were Obama'... and I wonder "had Clinton been elected to the White House in 2016 and this happened..." she'd already been removed from office. But the GOP clearly has no intention of holding Trump accountable for his actions.

Oddly, in the same breath, Sen. Cornyn says the Dems have a "credibility problem"... because of excerpts released from a draft of a book by a staunch Republican to the NSA got leaked to the press somewhere. Where would the Dems even get their paws on this?

Do you know any politicians or political appointees who want to take the witness stand? Our elected officials literally make their livings by telling lies and keeping secrets. Taking the witness stand involves committing perjury. That's why the GOP doesn't want witnesses.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

According to the above link to an editorial that was put out in the NYTimes today, Justice Roberts can demand witnesses if he chooses. So, if this is true, the real question is, does Roberts have the balls and integrity to do the right thing?

An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.

Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.

But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does.

The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”

As you can see, there is no “Senate vote” requirement whatsoever in the subpoena rule. A manager can seek it on his own.

The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

According to the above link to an editorial that was put out in the NYTimes today, Justice Roberts can demand witnesses if he chooses. So, if this is true, the real question is, does Roberts have the balls and integrity to do the right thing?

An overwhelming number of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, believe the Senate should hear from relevant witnesses and obtain documents during President Trump’s impeachment trial. Striking new revelations about the president’s role in the Ukraine affair, as reported from an unpublished manuscript by John Bolton, underscore the need for his testimony and that of others.

Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.

But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does.

The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”

As you can see, there is no “Senate vote” requirement whatsoever in the subpoena rule. A manager can seek it on his own.

The rules further empower the chief justice to enforce the subpoena rule. Rule V says: “The presiding officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules, or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.” The presiding officer, under our Constitution, is the chief justice. As such, the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the “power to make and issue, by himself,” subpoenas.

I think this means house managers can do it. The wording of the latter section sounds more like he is a vehicle to enforce or actualize the things set by others. I could be wrong of course.

This link got some coverage on DU. People didn't seem to buy it there either.

But let him try. The more the merrier.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

According to the above link to an editorial that was put out in the NYTimes today, Justice Roberts can demand witnesses if he chooses. So, if this is true, the real question is, does Roberts have the balls and integrity to do the right thing?

I think this means house managers can do it. The wording of the latter section sounds more like he is a vehicle to enforce or actualize the things set by others. I could be wrong of course.

This link got some coverage on DU. People didn't seem to buy it there either.

But let him try. The more the merrier.

The way I thought this whole thing was set up is the senators can override any decision by Roberts with a simple majority vote.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/john-roberts-impeachment-witnesses.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

According to the above link to an editorial that was put out in the NYTimes today, Justice Roberts can demand witnesses if he chooses. So, if this is true, the real question is, does Roberts have the balls and integrity to do the right thing?

I think this means house managers can do it. The wording of the latter section sounds more like he is a vehicle to enforce or actualize the things set by others. I could be wrong of course.

This link got some coverage on DU. People didn't seem to buy it there either.

But let him try. The more the merrier.

The way I thought this whole thing was set up is the senators can override any decision by Roberts with a simple majority vote.

That's what I thought too but maybe Roberts will grow a pair. Why even call it a trial if it's just a dog and pony show? Why call it a trial if I can block a witness from testifying simply by taking a vote from the gallery? It would be funny if it wasn't so real.

Roberts is the only hope that something decent and honest will come from this. If the guy wants to be remembered as a person that believed in all those great sounding platitudes he dishes out he better start thinking about his legacy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Chief Justice Roberts can fairly make the argument that the GOP ignoring any additional evidence presented will present no increased burden on the relative amount of evidence ignoring they are already doing. There is very little that could be put forth through evidence or testimony that can be ignored just as much as the transcript and Diplomatic testimony. "I mean, if the transcript isn't evidence enough for you, nothing will be, so let's just do this thing and you can continue to put your head in the sand and say there was no announcement, therefore no crime."

 

[Gun Nut]

Sen. Cornyn is now adjusting the argument back to 'Well, the investigation didn't happen, Ukraine got their money (some)... nothing to see here.'

In the past, we'd say 'what if this were Obama'... and I wonder "had Clinton been elected to the White House in 2016 and this happened..." she'd already been removed from office. But the GOP clearly has no intention of holding Trump accountable for his actions.

Oddly, in the same breath, Sen. Cornyn says the Dems have a "credibility problem"... because of excerpts released from a draft of a book by a staunch Republican to the NSA got leaked to the press somewhere. Where would the Dems even get their paws on this?

Do you know any politicians or political appointees who want to take the witness stand? Our elected officials literally make their livings by telling lies and keeping secrets. Taking the witness stand involves committing perjury. That's why the GOP doesn't want witnesses.

Why would any witness need or want to lie in this case? Isn;t honesty in a trial the easiest and best thing to do for every single person involved? If you believe Trump is a victim of a witch hunt, then witnesses will clear everything up and exonerate him. The alternative is the appearance of a major coverup. There is only one possible reason to demand a cover up, versus a clarification of facts. You know what that one thing is. Everybody does.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Bolton is a cowardly asswipe. If he had this information, he should have volunteered to testify in the House, instead of the hiding behind the request for a subpeona.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the process, but didn't he request the subpoena so he would be able to legally ignore any attempt by SCROTUS to block his testimony?