• 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!

Trump and minions hiding Bolton revelations from GOP senators

Sand Castle

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
6,766
Reaction score
3,247
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trump's cover up and witholding evidence from the American people and Democrats up to now has succeeded.
But when you treat you defenders with the same contempt and hide evidence from them, well Trump may have cooked his own goose.

Since the Bolton news broke, the White House has heard from Republican senators frustrated that they were kept in the dark when at least someone in the White House had the Bolton manuscript since the end of December, according to a source familiar with the conversations.
 
Why would Trump White House tell anyone, including his defenders, that there is even more evidence of his corrupt scheme?

I doubt any Republicans are frustrated about not knowing earlier. I think they wish they still did not know.
 
Why would Trump White House tell anyone, including his defenders, that there is even more evidence of his corrupt scheme?

I doubt any Republicans are frustrated about not knowing earlier. I think they wish they still did not know.
Not if Trump was lying as usual and telling the GOP that Bolton knows nothing.
 
Why would Trump White House tell anyone, including his defenders, that there is even more evidence of his corrupt scheme?

I doubt any Republicans are frustrated about not knowing earlier. I think they wish they still did not know.



They're frustrated for knowing at all. They shouldn't be frustrated w/Trump. That's like a snake handler frustrated with a rattler for not being told about the biting thing.
 
Why would Trump White House tell anyone, including his defenders, that there is even more evidence of his corrupt scheme?

I doubt any Republicans are frustrated about not knowing earlier. I think they wish they still did not know.

The thing is, his White House lawyers all knew about this Bolton manuscript and what was contained in it since December. Still, they stood up in front of Congress and professed outrage that the democrats could dare to try to impeach Trump on 'hearsay'. These lawyers have licenses to practice law, and that comes with responsibilities, one of which is not to be complicit in a crime, which is exactly what they've done. How many, including lawyers, went to prison from their complicity in the Watergate coverup? Quite a few. These men have put their law licenses in jeopardy at the very least.
 
Bolton is selling a book.

He'll take the witness stand, get on national TV, mention his book, and take the 5th.
 
[Omissions]

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. [Omit: Sondland testimony that Trump told him to convey quid pro quo to Zelensky]. 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.
.
.
.

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.
.
.
.



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. [omit other reasons WH would know what Bolton would testify to, hence why they want to block him]

[Cont.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ig-takeaways-explosive-john-bolton-bombshell/


Omissions to meet fair use rule.



Of course, the rationale is the same for every witness Trump has/had stonewalling: they want to be able to claim there is no "direct evidence" and what easier way to create a basis for such a claim than to have all 'direct evidence' witnesses stonewall.

Before the Senate on Saturday, deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura laid out the elements of that defense. Key among them: “Not a single witness testified that the President himself said there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a Presidential meeting, or anything else.” He continued: “Most of the Democrats’ witnesses have never spoken to the President at all, let alone about Ukraine security assistance.” And: “The Democrats’ entire quid pro quo theory is based on nothing more than the initial speculation of one person” — U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...stating-not-even-republicans-could-look-away/



(Though note, the stonewalling has been incomplete. For example, Sondland didn't want to throw himself under the bus; we have his testimony directly linking the aid freeze to Trump's demand for announcement of investigations into Biden. And even the edited memo summary of the call is damning- who knows what they edited out?)

It's not like his supporters will have a problem with the brazen dishonesty. They've loved it. Besides, it might annoy a liberal somewhere. To that end, we know what they'll do: they'll claim Bolton made it all up because he was mad for being fired (rather than the simple truth: he was fired because as bad as he is, even he wouldn't go along with this corrupt scheme).

They'll do that AND still insist he should not be allowed to testify under oath (which would expose him to perjury could they actually prove he was lying)
 
Romney, Collins, and Murkowski have all made remarks that indicate they support Bolton testifying. That brings us to 50 now.
 
The thing is, his White House lawyers all knew about this Bolton manuscript and what was contained in it since December. Still, they stood up in front of Congress and professed outrage that the democrats could dare to try to impeach Trump on 'hearsay'. These lawyers have licenses to practice law, and that comes with responsibilities, one of which is not to be complicit in a crime, which is exactly what they've done. How many, including lawyers, went to prison from their complicity in the Watergate coverup? Quite a few. These men have put their law licenses in jeopardy at the very least.

Where do you get that from?
 
Romney, Collins, and Murkowski have all made remarks that indicate they support Bolton testifying. That brings us to 50 now.

With all respect, talk is cheap. Especially with Collins. We shall see ...

(I wasn't aware of Murkowski, so I suspect all eyes are now on Alexander)
 
Where do you get that from?

Any news, it's all out there in the public domain. Just google it. Who do you think are on the National Security Counsel to which the manuscript was sent for review? Here, I'll help you out, you can figure out who knew about this manuscript if you only put the names in the positions.


Screenshot-2020-01-27-United-States-National-Security-Council.png
 
Last edited:
Bolton is selling a book.

He'll take the witness stand, get on national TV, mention his book, and take the 5th.

What's that get him he doesn't already have?

Seems to me, it would be better for his book sales (since that's apparently the only thing that could possibly motivate him) to be locked out of testimony (still likely) by the GOP, and go to his grave talking up how he had new information to reveal, but that the Senate wasn't in the market for true information.

That, and sticking Trump in this difficult position, sounds a lot more like fitting revenge to me.

And it's still up to the Senate GOP today, since they could decide to let him testify, and respond to his testimony for the love of the truth, rather than block it for the love of Trump.

Of course, none of that will stop Bolton from dumping everything he's got to the public if the Senate trial doesn't conclude to his satisfaction.

If the Senate can't even fake up a vague interest in the truth of the charges against Trump, we can and will rub their noses in it right up to the election.
 
If it’s true that no witness has testified to this, it’s precisely because Trump blocked witnesses who could testify to it

One thing that's not clear to me is why would not Bolton testify before the House, like other witnesses that agreed to do so, despite Trump attempts to block witnesses.
 
One thing that's not clear to me is why would not Bolton testify before the House, like other witnesses that agreed to do so, despite Trump attempts to block witnesses.

I dunno. Perhaps it was part of his strategy for shopping around the book: offer to testify where there seemed to be no chance of it (senate) so that buying his book would be the only way to find out what he'd say.

Don't know why they wouldn't just subpoena him anyway.
 
What's that get him he doesn't already have?

Seems to me, it would be better for his book sales (since that's apparently the only thing that could possibly motivate him) to be locked out of testimony (still likely) by the GOP, and go to his grave talking up how he had new information to reveal, but that the Senate wasn't in the market for true information.

That, and sticking Trump in this difficult position, sounds a lot more like fitting revenge to me.

And it's still up to the Senate GOP today, since they could decide to let him testify, and respond to his testimony for the love of the truth, rather than block it for the love of Trump.

Of course, none of that will stop Bolton from dumping everything he's got to the public if the Senate trial doesn't conclude to his satisfaction.

If the Senate can't even fake up a vague interest in the truth of the charges against Trump, we can and will rub their noses in it right up to the election.
You betcha'! And they deserve it. But they have no choice, because allowing witnesses, documentation, and evidence, will sink them and Trump.
 
What's that get him he doesn't already have?

Seems to me, it would be better for his book sales (since that's apparently the only thing that could possibly motivate him) to be locked out of testimony (still likely) by the GOP, and go to his grave talking up how he had new information to reveal, but that the Senate wasn't in the market for true information.

That, and sticking Trump in this difficult position, sounds a lot more like fitting revenge to me.

And it's still up to the Senate GOP today, since they could decide to let him testify, and respond to his testimony for the love of the truth, rather than block it for the love of Trump.

Of course, none of that will stop Bolton from dumping everything he's got to the public if the Senate trial doesn't conclude to his satisfaction.

If the Senate can't even fake up a vague interest in the truth of the charges against Trump, we can and will rub their noses in it right up to the election.

Bolton is an accomplice in my view. He was Nat. Security Director. He knew about 'the drug deal' and warned that it was all 'going to blow up on them'. So, why didn't he do the patriotic thing, the thing he took an oath to do and protect this democracy by coming forward with what he knew instead of merely trying to cash in on it with his book?
 
One thing that's not clear to me is why would not Bolton testify before the House, like other witnesses that agreed to do so, despite Trump attempts to block witnesses.

Because he wanted to profit off this information by disclosing it in his book.
 
Bolton is an accomplice in my view. He was Nat. Security Director. He knew about 'the drug deal' and warned that it was all 'going to blow up on them'. So, why didn't he do the patriotic thing, the thing he took an oath to do and protect this democracy by coming forward with what he knew instead of merely trying to cash in on it with his book?
Yeah, Bolton is crap too. All of them are. Trump surrounds himself with & breeds crap. Pure & simple.
 
Trump's cover up and witholding evidence from the American people and Democrats up to now has succeeded.
But when you treat you defenders with the same contempt and hide evidence from them, well Trump may have cooked his own goose.

Since the Bolton news broke, the White House has heard from Republican senators frustrated that they were kept in the dark when at least someone in the White House had the Bolton manuscript since the end of December, according to a source familiar with the conversations.

So says the NYT based on leaked information they claim to be contained in Bolten book. Yet Bolton's attorneys claim no copies have been released to anyone but the NSA for review prior to clearing it for release. So where did the NYT get this information and naturally how was it verified?
 
One thing that's not clear to me is why would not Bolton testify before the House, like other witnesses that agreed to do so, despite Trump attempts to block witnesses.

That is a puzzler.

If he's a patriot with relevant info (whether exonerating or condemning) why wait?

If he's a party guy with exonerating info, why wait?

If he's a party guy with condemning info, why offer to testify at all?

I suspect that Bolton is not the smoking gun.
 
Yeah, Bolton is crap too. All of them are. Trump surrounds himself with & breeds crap. Pure & simple.

Thinking about it, it's just about the most supreme mobster gang that holds the power of the most dominate country in the world. Other countries look at the U.S. and are afraid. We're not the country they've emulated in the past. Now, we're just another banana republic basically, ruled by a handful of greedy men.
 
Back
Top Bottom