[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Gotta Get Your Drink On - Proclivities - Jan 28, 2020 - 6:48am
 
songs that ROCK! - kurtster - Jan 28, 2020 - 6:37am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - sirdroseph - Jan 28, 2020 - 6:00am
 
What the hell OV? - miamizsun - Jan 28, 2020 - 5:05am
 
The Obituary Page - sirdroseph - Jan 28, 2020 - 5:05am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - sirdroseph - Jan 28, 2020 - 5:01am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - miamizsun - Jan 28, 2020 - 4:41am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Jan 28, 2020 - 4:32am
 
What's that smell? - miamizsun - Jan 28, 2020 - 4:29am
 
Trump - sirdroseph - Jan 28, 2020 - 2:24am
 
Environment - sirdroseph - Jan 28, 2020 - 2:15am
 
Documentaries - sirdroseph - Jan 28, 2020 - 2:03am
 
Impeachment Time: - kurtster - Jan 27, 2020 - 11:17pm
 
Automotive Lust - cc_rider - Jan 27, 2020 - 6:41pm
 
THREE WORDS - ColdMiser - Jan 27, 2020 - 5:44pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - haresfur - Jan 27, 2020 - 4:52pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Jan 27, 2020 - 4:04pm
 
war is a racket - R_P - Jan 27, 2020 - 2:48pm
 
Animal Resistance - jahgirl8 - Jan 27, 2020 - 2:35pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - rmgman - Jan 27, 2020 - 11:09am
 
Music News - Steely_D - Jan 27, 2020 - 10:42am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 27, 2020 - 9:53am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Proclivities - Jan 27, 2020 - 7:58am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - haresfur - Jan 27, 2020 - 7:01am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Proclivities - Jan 27, 2020 - 6:15am
 
Thorium Power - miamizsun - Jan 27, 2020 - 4:18am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Jan 27, 2020 - 3:42am
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jan 26, 2020 - 4:08pm
 
Edward Norton's Neo-Noir film Motherless Brooklyn. - SeriousLee - Jan 26, 2020 - 3:23pm
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Jan 26, 2020 - 3:10pm
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - R_P - Jan 26, 2020 - 2:02pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - SeriousLee - Jan 26, 2020 - 10:51am
 
Pandemics and Rights - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2020 - 7:39am
 
Ask the Libertarian - Lazy8 - Jan 26, 2020 - 7:14am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 26, 2020 - 7:03am
 
Yamaha Musiccast - ilveroluca - Jan 26, 2020 - 6:11am
 
Things that make you cautiously optimistic - miamizsun - Jan 26, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Stream Stopping - Multiple Platforms - ilveroluca - Jan 26, 2020 - 5:58am
 
Neil Young - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 6:26pm
 
Democratic Party - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - Red_Dragon - Jan 25, 2020 - 4:34pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Chuck1 - Jan 25, 2020 - 4:25pm
 
Official date for our 20th Anniversary? - buddy - Jan 25, 2020 - 1:10pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 12:38pm
 
Race in America - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 11:57am
 
Brazil - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 11:18am
 
Mars - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 10:27am
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jan 25, 2020 - 12:09am
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 7:46pm
 
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet - gvajda - Jan 24, 2020 - 5:54pm
 
Way Cool Video - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 5:22pm
 
We need some new car names - jahgirl8 - Jan 24, 2020 - 4:00pm
 
how do you feel right now? - Antigone - Jan 24, 2020 - 2:38pm
 
Iran - jahgirl8 - Jan 24, 2020 - 2:32pm
 
A motivational quote - jahgirl8 - Jan 24, 2020 - 2:23pm
 
Interesting Art - Proclivities - Jan 24, 2020 - 1:36pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 11:23am
 
Economix - R_P - Jan 24, 2020 - 10:49am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jan 24, 2020 - 10:10am
 
Acting - R_P - Jan 24, 2020 - 9:55am
 
Strange & Cool Music - Proclivities - Jan 24, 2020 - 9:32am
 
Recommended documentaries - cc_rider - Jan 24, 2020 - 9:05am
 
Florida - miamizsun - Jan 24, 2020 - 5:31am
 
Croatia - EdSe - Jan 24, 2020 - 12:06am
 
Bad News / Good News - haresfur - Jan 23, 2020 - 4:11pm
 
WTF??!! - Antigone - Jan 23, 2020 - 3:04pm
 
The war on funk is over! - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2020 - 12:59pm
 
Jazz - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2020 - 12:41pm
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - Ohmsen - Jan 23, 2020 - 12:21pm
 
SFW & Gluttony Pants - Proclivities - Jan 23, 2020 - 9:23am
 
Your app for Mac needs an update - gtufano - Jan 22, 2020 - 11:36pm
 
RP and Sonos - jarro - Jan 22, 2020 - 5:04pm
 
What Do You Want From RP? - buddy - Jan 22, 2020 - 2:53pm
 
Movie Quote - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2020 - 10:32am
 
A Sad Day, Indeed - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 22, 2020 - 7:09am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 731, 732, 733  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2020 - 2:24am

 KarmaKarma wrote:


What he said.
 
I actually have no problem with that segment and thought it was kinda funny myself.  The same acrimony and teasing is just as alive in many conservatives rankling of liberals. For every Pompeo there is a Jimmy Kimmel to make fun of.  I freely make fun of the hypocrisy of both.  Rule of comedy, it has to have more than an element of truth to be funny.  If they laugh, it's all good.  If it is not funny, it is mean and unnecessary.  However he is correct in the fact this is an encapsulation of why Trump will win even more handily this time.
KarmaKarma

KarmaKarma Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 10:51pm



What he said.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 4:37pm

 westslope wrote:

Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is showing severe signs of stress.  See:  FOX NEWS HOST SAYS MIKE POMPEO SHOULD APOLOGIZE OVER NPR DEBACLE: 'DON'T BE SUCH A BABY'
 
I saw Hilton's show live and saw this editorial.  I agree with Hilton.  Pompeo should apologize.

Steve Hilton is a UK ex pat with a populist / libertarian bent.  I value his insight.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 4:27pm

 rgio wrote:


 R_P wrote:
Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.

He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none.
 
For those who are following at home....The White House received the transcript for review, and then 6 days later kills Soleimani based on multiple, urgent, credible threats that have been rejected by those who would have known.  

Kurt...the "unnamed sources" concerns below are a whistleblower retread:  ignore the content and focus on the process.  If I told you John Bolton was the unnamed source....would it matter?

 
The latest I have heard is that the manuscript went directly to the NSC for a proper security review via the address on the letter and that no one within the government outside of the NSC has seen the contents of the manuscript, including Trump or anyone else in the White House.

My understanding is that Bolton would have violated criminal laws should he openly directly discuss contents of the book prior to the security review.  So yes it would matter.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 3:38pm

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 3:31pm

Only The Best people...
jahgirl8

jahgirl8 Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 1:28pm



 westslope wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
ScottFromWyoming wrote:

2. I keep seeing the Republican talking point that the House impeachment was "rushed" and that the time for hearing testimony was before things got to the Senate. So the GOP was hoping that the House would slow the process down and force the Supremes to force the witnesses to testify? That was their game plan? And then, what? The witnesses would perjure themselves and absolve the president?

I have no idea if they  even had a game plan other than run out the clock until the election. They were blessed with inept opponents, too obsessed with their own sputtering rage to plan a campaign that would get people who aren't already in their camp to come along. Testifying over and over about how outraged they are doesn't outrage anyone else.

........
 


Some of the repetition may be tedious but please note that this rhetorical technique works well with American voters in regards to Mid-East policies and attempts to justify/motivate the slaughter of numerous brown-skinned civilians and violent takings in general.  

I believe the House Democrats under Pelosi's leadership have done an excellent job.   They are constantly throwing the mess back on the Republicans and thus highlighting Republican party obstinance. 

It would also appear that Democratic strategists understand that time is on their side.  Trump cannot help but unhinge and self-incriminate.  Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is showing severe signs of stress.  See:  FOX NEWS HOST SAYS MIKE POMPEO SHOULD APOLOGIZE OVER NPR DEBACLE: 'DON'T BE SUCH A BABY'


 
Time is on their side but for the fact that none of the Dem presidential candidates are allowed to leave the floor and get back to the campaign trail. Seems things are wrapping up soon so that may not be as much of an issue as many thought... I disagree with your assessment of House Dems doing a good job. Most of my friends think they looked like bumbling idiots through this whole process.  None of them gained any points in the polls for "rescuing" our country from the evil that is President Trump.



Nelson Mandela Quote: “Fools multiply when wise men are silent.”

rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 11:37am



 R_P wrote:
Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.

He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none.

 
For those who are following at home....The White House received the transcript for review, and then 6 days later kills Soleimani based on multiple, urgent, credible threats that have been rejected by those who would have known.  

Kurt...the "unnamed sources" concerns below are a whistleblower retread:  ignore the content and focus on the process.  If I told you John Bolton was the unnamed source....would it matter?



R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 11:31am

Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.

He said he provided a copy of the book to the White House on Dec. 30 — 12 days after Mr. Trump was impeached — to be reviewed for classified information, though, he said, Mr. Bolton believed it contained none.

The submission to the White House may have given Mr. Trump’s aides and lawyers direct insight into what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify at Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial. 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.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 11:18am



 Lazy8 wrote:
ScottFromWyoming wrote:

2. I keep seeing the Republican talking point that the House impeachment was "rushed" and that the time for hearing testimony was before things got to the Senate. So the GOP was hoping that the House would slow the process down and force the Supremes to force the witnesses to testify? That was their game plan? And then, what? The witnesses would perjure themselves and absolve the president?

I have no idea if they  even had a game plan other than run out the clock until the election. They were blessed with inept opponents, too obsessed with their own sputtering rage to plan a campaign that would get people who aren't already in their camp to come along. Testifying over and over about how outraged they are doesn't outrage anyone else.

........
 


Some of the repetition may be tedious but please note that this rhetorical technique works well with American voters in regards to Mid-East policies and attempts to justify/motivate the slaughter of numerous brown-skinned civilians and violent takings in general.  

I believe the House Democrats under Pelosi's leadership have done an excellent job.   They are constantly throwing the mess back on the Republicans and thus highlighting Republican party obstinance. 

It would also appear that Democratic strategists understand that time is on their side.  Trump cannot help but unhinge and self-incriminate.  Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is showing severe signs of stress.  See:  FOX NEWS HOST SAYS MIKE POMPEO SHOULD APOLOGIZE OVER NPR DEBACLE: 'DON'T BE SUCH A BABY'


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 10:57am

 Steely_D wrote:


 kurtster wrote:

I can't get past the firewall, but it is my understanding that the NYT has not seen any of what it is reporting depending 100% from anonymous sources.

That being the case, this is another example of careful timing planting a story with no facts just unattributed rumour designed to cause a desired end.  That end being to restore pressure to call for witnesses in the impeachment trial.  It was becoming very clear that the vote on that matter simply would not get there. 

This has been the method in place to create investigations into Trump from day one of his tenure in office.  And it has worked rather well, so far.  Plant a phony story to become evidence for the need for another investigation.  Once the investigation is underway it is soon forgotten what started it and as in the case of the whistleblower and other investigations, deemed irrelevant.  Yet without the phony story, no investigation would have been initiated.  

Perhaps enough people are becoming aware of this tactic that the legacy media in tandem with the DNC has been using for it to finally become ineffective and uncredible.

Where's the beef ?  No beef, no story in the end.  Yet the means justify the ends.

I have an NYT subscription ($1 a week. Worth a test drive to escape the noise of everything else). It doesn’t look like they’re relying on “anonymous” sources, in the sense of folks of questionable veracity, from this.
WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Just after midnight on Monday, Mr. Trump denied telling Mr. Bolton that the aid was tied to investigations. “If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book,” he wrote on Twitter, reprising his argument that the Ukrainians themselves felt “no pressure” and falsely asserting that the aid was released ahead of schedule.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about itonly in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.

During a previously reported May 23 meeting where top advisers and Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, briefed him about their trip to Kyiv for the inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Trump railed about Ukraine trying to damage him and mentioned a conspiracy theory about a hacked Democratic server, according to Mr. Bolton.

The White House did not provide responses to questions about Mr. Bolton’s assertions, and representatives for Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment on Sunday afternoon.

 
 

So just who are these multiple people ?  Can you or anyone else tell me ?  Sounds 100% anonymous to me.  I believe that I was correct.

.
I'm not giving the NYT any $'s for anything.  My monthly allotment of free reads has expired and I'm not dumping cookies or using another computer to get around the wall.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 10:50am

Beef.  Beef.  Beef.  Beef.  Beef.  Beef.  Beef.  Beef.  

Sorry, I cold not resist.  I just posted elsewhere about once upon a time working with a chain saw and cannot get Monty Python out of my head.  "On Wednesdays we go shopping and have butter scones for tea."  
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 10:43am



 kurtster wrote:

I can't get past the firewall, but it is my understanding that the NYT has not seen any of what it is reporting depending 100% from anonymous sources.

That being the case, this is another example of careful timing planting a story with no facts just unattributed rumour designed to cause a desired end.  That end being to restore pressure to call for witnesses in the impeachment trial.  It was becoming very clear that the vote on that matter simply would not get there. 

This has been the method in place to create investigations into Trump from day one of his tenure in office.  And it has worked rather well, so far.  Plant a phony story to become evidence for the need for another investigation.  Once the investigation is underway it is soon forgotten what started it and as in the case of the whistleblower and other investigations, deemed irrelevant.  Yet without the phony story, no investigation would have been initiated.  

Perhaps enough people are becoming aware of this tactic that the legacy media in tandem with the DNC has been using for it to finally become ineffective and uncredible.

Where's the beef ?  No beef, no story in the end.  Yet the means justify the ends.

I have an NYT subscription ($1 a week. Worth a test drive to escape the noise of everything else). It doesn’t look like they’re relying on “anonymous” sources, in the sense of folks of questionable veracity, from this.


WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Just after midnight on Monday, Mr. Trump denied telling Mr. Bolton that the aid was tied to investigations. “If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book,” he wrote on Twitter, reprising his argument that the Ukrainians themselves felt “no pressure” and falsely asserting that the aid was released ahead of schedule.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about itonly in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.

During a previously reported May 23 meeting where top advisers and Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, briefed him about their trip to Kyiv for the inauguration of President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Trump railed about Ukraine trying to damage him and mentioned a conspiracy theory about a hacked Democratic server, according to Mr. Bolton.

The White House did not provide responses to questions about Mr. Bolton’s assertions, and representatives for Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment on Sunday afternoon.

 


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 10:39am

 kcar wrote: 
I can't get past the firewall, but it is my understanding that the NYT has not seen any of what it is reporting depending 100% from anonymous sources.

That being the case, this is another example of careful timing planting a story with no facts just unattributed rumour designed to cause a desired end.  That end being to restore pressure to call for witnesses in the impeachment trial.  It was becoming very clear that the vote on that matter simply would not get there. 

This has been the method in place to create investigations into Trump from day one of his tenure in office.  And it has worked rather well, so far.  Plant a phony story to become evidence for the need for another investigation.  Once the investigation is underway it is soon forgotten what started it and as in the case of the whistleblower and other investigations, deemed irrelevant.  Yet without the phony story, no investigation would have been initiated.  

Perhaps enough people are becoming aware of this tactic that the legacy media in tandem with the DNC has been using for it to finally become ineffective and uncredible.

Where's the beef ?  No beef, no story in the end.  Yet the means justify the ends.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2020 - 4:29am

i'd say if you want to know or understand what is going on from an intentional strategy perspective, here's your chance...

good interviews and credit to frontline for letting this guy open up (i'd watch or listen to both of these)

imho frontline is worthy of your subscription 





kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jan 26, 2020 - 7:14pm



 rgio wrote:


 haresfur wrote:
I don't understand why the house didn't subpoena Boulton 
 
Because Trump was going to fight it, and it could have taken up to a year to resolve in the courts.  

 
Yes. My amateur take: Trump's lawyers would have argued that Bolton's discussions with Trump were directly tied to national security and likely less available for disclosure to Congress than Nixon's tapes.

Lazy8 believed IIRC that Congress could have worked through the courts to compel testimony from Pompeo, Mulvaney etc but commentaries I've read about forcing McGahn the lawyer pointed out that McGahn can take the matter of his testimony to the courts repeatedly to contest the matter on a point by point basis.

Also, the Supreme Court that decided to require the release of the Nixon tapes is not the same Supreme Court that might hear arguments about compelling testimony from Trump admin. officials. It's much more conservative and receptive to claims of executive powers and privilege.

As the NYT piece points out the Trump administration can kill publication of Bolton's book entirely.

ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 26, 2020 - 7:03pm

 rgio wrote:


 haresfur wrote:
I don't understand why the house didn't subpoena Boulton 
 
Because Trump was going to fight it, and it could have taken up to a year to resolve in the courts.  

 
Bolton could have chosen to testify over Trump's order.  Many others did so. He chose to hype book sales instead.
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 26, 2020 - 6:31pm



 haresfur wrote:
I don't understand why the house didn't subpoena Boulton 
 
Because Trump was going to fight it, and it could have taken up to a year to resolve in the courts.  

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 26, 2020 - 6:19pm

I don't understand why the house didn't subpoena Boulton 
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jan 26, 2020 - 4:51pm

Bolton's book leaks.



Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says


WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.

The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president’s private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 731, 732, 733  Next