• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted Wednesday that his testimony in President Donald Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine would have had no impact on the trial’s outcome even after sections of his upcoming book leaked attempting to convict the president in its final days.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said at Vanderbilt University Wednesday night during a forum with his predecessor Susan Rice, according to ABC News. “I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”
“I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience,” Bolton added.

Rice challenged Bolton’s decision to remain silent throughout the process despite not ever being subpoenaed by the House or Senate in the proceedings.

“It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.”

Bolton argued that the House botched the process and condemned House Democrats for having committed “impeachment malpractice.”
“The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away from the president because it was so partisan,” Bolton claimed.

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt
Click to expand...

It must be astonishingly frustrating being a Leftist during the past 3-plus years. Well, we know it is... this forum is a testament to it.

So, with that in mind, another log on the fire to keep the Leftists well heated.
 
zimmer said:
It must be astonishingly frustrating being a Leftist during the past 3-plus years. Well, we know it is... this forum is a testament to it.

So, with that in mind, another log on the fire to keep the Leftists well heated.
Click to expand...

He admitted no such thing. As usual, you are lying.
 
chuckiechan said:
Reading must be a skill reserved for conservatives. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Click to expand...

Only to lying conservatives such as yourself. You make **** up just like zimmer. Sorry he admitted no such thing but you guys spin yourselves silly all you want. Maybe you need to work on reading instead of coloring books.
 
chuckiechan said:
Reading must be a skill reserved for conservatives. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Click to expand...

Heh. We only have Bolton's own words. The left knows what Bolton meant to say, which was, "I wish Trump a miserable and horrific death!"
 
zimmer said:
It must be astonishingly frustrating being a Leftist during the past 3-plus years. Well, we know it is... this forum is a testament to it.

So, with that in mind, another log on the fire to keep the Leftists well heated.
Click to expand...

...and this is a guy the R's like to hold up as being a patriot? They're a joke.
 
zimmer said:
It must be astonishingly frustrating being a Leftist during the past 3-plus years. Well, we know it is... this forum is a testament to it.

So, with that in mind, another log on the fire to keep the Leftists well heated.
Click to expand...

I don't see where Bolton says anything about him having leaked anything in order to stir up publicity. That was certainly one outcome of the leak, but he is saying something else entirely--namely, that the Senate wouldn't have voted to convict Trump no matter what Bolton might have revealed in testimony. He nevertheless felt compelled to reveal what he knew, at least to the public.

You have to assume a lot and add those assumptions to what Bolton said in order to make Bolton's remarks here about admitting to publicity-mongering.
 
humbolt said:
Heh. We only have Bolton's own words. The left knows what Bolton meant to say, which was, "I wish Trump a miserable and horrific death!"
Click to expand...

The problem is Bolton's own words don't say what the OP alleges they do, which is that the leaks were just a 'publicity stunt.'

What Bolton said was what he could testify to wouldn't have changed the minds of 20 or so Republicans in the Senate to vote to remove. That's different than "I leaked something for a publicity stunt."
 
JasperL said:
The problem is Bolton's own words don't say what the OP alleges they do, which is that the leaks were just a 'publicity stunt.'

What Bolton said was what he could testify to wouldn't have changed the minds of 20 or so Republicans in the Senate to vote to remove. That's different than "I leaked something for a publicity stunt."
Click to expand...

So it was a rogue leak at the NSC?
 
humbolt said:
So it was a rogue leak at the NSC?
Click to expand...

The words Bolton said do not support the claim in the OP.

I don't know who leaked the chapter. If you do, that's great but I don't see how it changes the meaning of what Bolton said to something he did not say or imply.
 
JasperL said:
The words Bolton said do not support the claim in the OP.

I don't know who leaked the chapter. If you do, that's great but I don't see how it changes the meaning of what Bolton said to something he did not say or imply.
Click to expand...

Nope. If the leak was authorized by Bolton, then Bolton was clearly hyping the book's release. If not authorized by Bolton, then you might have a point, but you'd have to prove the leak came from someone with another agenda entirely. Perhaps that's why Vindman's brother was shown the door at the NSC, but I've not read or heard such was the case.
 
humbolt said:
Nope. If the leak was authorized by Bolton, then Bolton was clearly hyping the book's release. If not authorized by Bolton, then you might have a point, but you'd have to prove the leak came from someone with another agenda entirely. Perhaps that's why Vindman's brother was shown the door at the NSC, but I've not read or heard such was the case.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're insisting what Bolton said means something entirely different than the pretty obvious meaning of those words. Saying that his testimony would not have caused the removal of Trump simply is NOT to say that if Bolton leaked part of his book (which you're assuming from nothing) he admitted it was merely a publicity stunt.

Words matter, I think. I hate defending a POS like Bolton, but you're making stuff up, then criticizing others for reading the words for what they SAY and not on what you made up.
 
chuckiechan said:
Reading must be a skill reserved for conservatives. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Click to expand...

What I read was Bolton admitting his testimony wouldn't have changed the outcome. I agree, the Senate could learn of a video of tRump bragging about holding The Ukraine hostage to get dirt on Biden and they still would have acquitted... :roll:
 
Praxas said:
Only to lying conservatives such as yourself. You make **** up just like zimmer. Sorry he admitted no such thing but you guys spin yourselves silly all you want. Maybe you need to work on reading instead of coloring books.
Click to expand...

Bolton stated in quotes that what he had would have made no difference. That means what he had was no smoking gun. He did not therefore agree with the liar Vinnaman, a terrible man of the uniform. Yet, you try to move the goal post to something else. It's over. Move on.
 
Praxas said:
He admitted no such thing. As usual, you are lying.
Click to expand...

Yep, he admitted that what he knew was not a Trump violation of any kind. He heard no extortion attempt. Was it a publicity stunt? Sure sounds like it. The timing of the release and announcement of his book is just too much of a possibility of a stunt to think otherwise. Logic and reasoning would help liberals out to understand better.
Then, there is this gem from Susan Rice, the Obama AG who stopped Comey from suggesting Hillary broke the law and should be prosecuted --"It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.” Can we say, Bill Clinton in the plane on the tarmak. LOL!!! She should have brought criminal charges against Lois Lerner and many others including Comey. She's a liar and should be in jail as well.
 
Cougarbear said:
Bolton stated in quotes that what he had would have made no difference. That means what he had was no smoking gun. He did not therefore agree with the liar Vinnaman, a terrible man of the uniform. Yet, you try to move the goal post to something else. It's over. Move on.
Click to expand...

If you're going to accuse someone of lying, it's more effective if you know how to spell his name.

And it's fascinating how many ways you guys can read words and ascribe all kinds of wild meanings to them that aren't in the words themselves. He didn't say he didn't agree with Vindman, but it's nice you made that up!
 
Cougarbear said:
Yep, he admitted that what he knew was not a Trump violation of any kind. He heard no extortion attempt. Was it a publicity stunt? Sure sounds like it. The timing of the release and announcement of his book is just too much of a possibility of a stunt to think otherwise. Logic and reasoning would help liberals out to understand better.
Then, there is this gem from Susan Rice, the Obama AG who stopped Comey from suggesting Hillary broke the law and should be prosecuted --"It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.” Can we say, Bill Clinton in the plane on the tarmak. LOL!!! She should have brought criminal charges against Lois Lerner and many others including Comey. She's a liar and should be in jail as well.
Click to expand...

You're on a roll here. Bolton didn't "admit" that what he knew wasn't a Trump violation, whatever that means. He didn't say there was no "extortion" attempt. He simply said his testimony wouldn't have caused Trump's removal.

BTW, Susan Rice was ambassador to the UN, then National Security Advisor. She didn't have the authority to bring any charges against anyone. That would have been the AG, who was a different black woman, Loretta Lynch. Yes, they might all look the same, but they have different names.
 
JasperL said:
If you're going to accuse someone of lying, it's more effective if you know how to spell his name.

And it's fascinating how many ways you guys can read words and ascribe all kinds of wild meanings to them that aren't in the words themselves. He didn't say he didn't agree with Vindman, but it's nice you made that up!
Click to expand...

Yes it did. You just don't want to admit Bolton didn't agree with Vinaminnin. Time to find another topic to keep you and your liberal friends occupied :stooges
 
Cougarbear said:
Yes it did. You just don't want to admit Bolton didn't agree with Vinaminnin. Time to find another topic to keep you and your liberal friends occupied
Click to expand...

I don't know whether Bolton "agreed" with him or not. We'll see for sure when the book comes out, assuming he addresses that directly. The point is Bolton didn't comment on that one way or the other in that story. You made it up.
 
JasperL said:
You're on a roll here. Bolton didn't "admit" that what he knew wasn't a Trump violation, whatever that means. He didn't say there was no "extortion" attempt. He simply said his testimony wouldn't have caused Trump's removal.

BTW, Susan Rice was ambassador to the UN, then National Security Advisor. She didn't have the authority to bring any charges against anyone. That would have been the AG, who was a different black woman, Loretta Lynch. Yes, they might all look the same, but they have different names.
Click to expand...

Do you think if Bolton heard and saw Trump extort the President of the Ukraine that it would be enough to have caused Trump's removal? Of course! But, he said his testimony or what he heard and saw isn't enough to find Trump guilty of the articles of impeachment. Why is it that the left can't logically reason anything out. They have to have Conservatives explain everything!
 
Cougarbear said:
Bolton stated in quotes that what he had would have made no difference.
Click to expand...
That's his guess, yes...that more facts, given that the case overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt, would have made no difference to the outcome. That is probably true.
It would have made Republicans pay a higher political price though.
It was also the right thing to do, to testify.

That means what he had was no smoking gun.
Click to expand...
That's absurd, and based no nothing.
Trump was shown to be guilty, *no amount of evidence*...smoking gun or otherwise, was sufficient for Senate Republicans, to vote against Mitch/Trump, and remove a sitting Republican president, a popular leader of their party.Remember, some even agreed he did it, but stated they would not remove him for it. Everyone knows they made a political choice, it had nothing to do with right/wrong, or guilty/not-guilty. Good grief.
 
Cougarbear said:
Do you think if Bolton heard and saw Trump extort the President of the Ukraine that it would be enough to have caused Trump's removal? Of course!
Click to expand...

Of course it wouldn't have been enough. We all know he "extorted" Ukraine, and if the Senate cared, at all, about proving that, determining it one way or the other, Bolton was begging to testify. They didn't care about that answer. Besides, Trump would have just called Bolton a liar, the GOP would have all said, he said/he said, Trump isn't on video admitting it, so who knows, etc. and the base goes along with it. That's basically what happened anyway.

But, he said his testimony or what he heard and saw isn't enough to find Trump guilty of the articles of impeachment. Why is it that the left can't logically reason anything out. They have to have Conservatives explain everything!
Click to expand...

I can't speak to anyone else's views, but I am just paying attention to what Bolton SAID, not on wild theories about what he didn't say but you believe he might have meant if he said different words in an alternate reality.
 
Mach said:
That's his guess, yes...that more facts, given that the case overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt, would have made no difference to the outcome. That is probably true.
It would have made Republicans pay a higher political price though.
It was also the right thing to do, to testify.


That's absurd, and based no nothing.
Trump was shown to be guilty, *no amount of evidence*...smoking gun or otherwise, was sufficient for Senate Republicans, to vote against Mitch/Trump, and remove a sitting Republican president, a popular leader of their party.Remember, some even agreed he did it, but stated they would not remove him for it. Everyone knows they made a political choice, it had nothing to do with right/wrong, or guilty/not-guilty. Good grief.
Click to expand...

What he's saying, is that he didn't have anything new.
 
Mach said:
That's his guess, yes...that more facts, given that the case overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt, would have made no difference to the outcome. That is probably true.
It would have made Republicans pay a higher political price though.
It was also the right thing to do, to testify.


That's absurd, and based no nothing.
Trump was shown to be guilty, *no amount of evidence*...smoking gun or otherwise, was sufficient for Senate Republicans, to vote against Mitch/Trump, and remove a sitting Republican president, a popular leader of their party.Remember, some even agreed he did it, but stated they would not remove him for it. Everyone knows they made a political choice, it had nothing to do with right/wrong, or guilty/not-guilty. Good grief.
Click to expand...

Then the House Democrats should have subpoenaed him... and others.

They should have had a fair investigation instead of the vile pile of anti-American **** they pulled.

But hey... they ****ed themselves...

...poetic justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom