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

W_Heisenberg

W_Heisenberg

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
21,674
Reaction score
19,707
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times

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

Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial.

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to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.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.
Click to expand...

After this revelation, the likelihood that at least some witnesses will be called is now significantly greater.

This, combined with the Parnas revelations, make it significantly more difficult to refute the argument that more witnesses are not necessary.
 
Last edited:
How is it legal for a witness in a monumental case to profit from a book deal instead of providing testimony in the proceedings?
 
It's amazing how literally every account and document supports the allegation that Trump extorted a foreign leader to announce a fake investigation into his political rival in order to cheat in the 2020 election by leveraging $400 million crucial military aid, and no evidence refutes it.
 
Senator Collins: "This seems very grave, but this evidence wasn't included in the House report, so there's nothing I can do! Also, I'd really rather not have my head on a pike, thankyouverymuch."
 
Rexedgar said:
How is it legal for a witness in a monumental case to profit from a book deal instead of providing testimony in the proceedings?
Click to expand...

He hasn't been subpoenaed, but it sounds like he has some interesting things to say if he were. The quote he made about Giuliani and how he described the what was being concocted, made it clear he knew it was going to be a crap show.
 
So how many smoking guns do you suppose Republicans can ignore?
 
Cardinal said:
So how many smoking guns do you suppose Republicans can ignore?
Click to expand...

Most of the Republicans will ignore all of the evidence, but the Democrats only need 4.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times

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



After this revelation, the likelihood that at least some witnesses will be called is now significantly greater.

This, combined with the Parnas revelations, make it significantly more difficult to refute the argument that more witnesses are not necessary.
Click to expand...

Paywalls suck.

So tell me...is this..."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" an exact quote from the book? Or is it the spinning nonsense someone at NYT **** onto the street?
 
Cardinal said:
So how many smoking guns do you suppose Republicans can ignore?
Click to expand...
A smoking gun just means someone exercised their 2nd amendment rights, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.
 
Cardinal said:
Isn't it extraordinary how only trump supporters seem to hit paywalls?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about "trump supporters", but I won't pay and I'm too lazy to jump through hoops to dishonestly bypass it.

It's not a big deal, as you seem to want to make it. I just ask for information.

(you obviously don't have any)
 
Mycroft said:
Paywalls suck.

So tell me...is this..."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" an exact quote from the book? Or is it the spinning nonsense someone at NYT **** onto the street?
Click to expand...

There is a way to find out, but it will require 4 Republican Senators to help.
 
Mycroft said:
Well, I don't know about "trump supporters"
Click to expand...

I do. Only trump supporters hit that pay wall. Everyone else can access those articles just fine. Odd, that.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times

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



After this revelation, the likelihood that at least some witnesses will be called is now significantly greater.

This, combined with the Parnas revelations, make it significantly more difficult to refute the argument that more witnesses are not necessary.
Click to expand...

Too bad the House didn't issue subpoenas because Pelosi refused to let the House vote on the impeachment inquiry.
 
Acadia said:
Too bad the House didn't issue subpoenas because Pelosi refused to let the House vote on the impeachment inquiry.
Click to expand...

There is nothing insufficient about the subpoenas. The committees already had subpoena power.

The reason why the witnesses did not testify is that they were blocked by Trump.

There is nothing stopping the Senate from fixing this problem except for the blind hatred Republicans have for Democrats.
 
Cardinal said:
I do. Only trump supporters hit that pay wall. Everyone else can access those articles just fine. Odd, that.
Click to expand...

And you STILL don't have any information.

You are dismissed. (see my sig)
 
W_Heisenberg said:
There is a way to find out, but it will require 4 Republican Senators to help.
Click to expand...

Sure...get him in there. Then you can hear him say the words, "Executive Privilege" a lot.
 
Mycroft said:
Sure...get him in there. Then you can hear him say the words, "Executive Privilege" a lot.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't take a great deal of time to sort of the executive privilege claims assuming the White House operates in good faith.

But that's one of the big problems, isn't it?

You are making this argument while under the assumption that the WH would not assert executive privilege in good faith. Isn't that right?

Schiff had a good idea about allowing Chief Justice Roberts to rule on executive privilege issues during the Senate trial. The WH lawyers and the Chief Justice are there, in the same room, with the House prosecutors, and all the Senators, so why not let them sort it out then and there?

The truth is, just like Trump, and his lawyers, and most of the Republicans, you are afraid those witnesses will provide testimony that implicates Trump. Isn't that the truth?
 
Last edited:
ElChupacabra said:
He hasn't been subpoenaed, but it sounds like he has some interesting things to say if he were. The quote he made about Giuliani and how he described the what was being concocted, made it clear he knew it was going to be a crap show.
Click to expand...

The House Intelligence committee did not issue a subpoena to John Bolton after his attorney threatened to go to court to fight if it was issued, according to a House Intelligence Committee official.

"We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today. His counsel has informed us that unlike three other dedicated public servants who worked for him on the NSC and have complied with lawful subpoenas, Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him," the official said in a statement provided to CNN.

The official continued, "We regret Mr. Bolton's decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months. Rather, the White House instruction that he not appear will add to the evidence of the President's obstruction of Congress."
Click to expand...
House did not subpoena John Bolton after his attorney threatened to go to court - CNNPolitics


"Because I have book sales to chase."
 
W_Heisenberg said:
It shouldn't take a great deal of time to sort of the executive privilege claims assuming the White House operates in good faith.

But that's one of the big problems, isn't it?

You are making this argument while under the assumption that the WH would not assert executive privilege in good faith. Isn't that right?

Schiff had a good idea about allowing Chief Justice Roberts to rule on executive privilege issues during the Senate trial. The WH lawyers and the Chief Justice are there, in the same room, with the House prosecutors, and all the Senators, so why not sort it out?
Click to expand...

The bolded above is simply Schiff attempting to circumvent the courts again, and one SC Justice doesn't reflect the view of the entire court. It's a rotten idea, but as such certainly worthy of Schiff.
 
humbolt said:
The bolded above is simply Schiff attempting to circumvent the courts again,
Click to expand...

No one is being sentenced to prison. The courts have nothing to do with this. No crime need be committed or proven. The removal of the President via impeachment is a political process.
 
humbolt said:
The bolded above is simply Schiff attempting to circumvent the courts again, and one SC Justice doesn't reflect the view of the entire court. It's a rotten idea, but as such certainly worthy of Schiff.
Click to expand...

During previous administrations, the WH and Congress would sort out executive privilege claims on their own without court intervention all the time.

We don't need the courts to solve this problem.

We need a President who doesn't think he is above the law.

We need the Republicans and Trump supporters to wake up and stop putting party over country.

Trump is the problem. Not Schiff. Not the Democrats. Not the media. It's Trump. Trump is the problem.
 
Cardinal said:
So how many smoking guns do you suppose Republicans can ignore?
Click to expand...

All of them. However, I'm sure Collins is concerned or maybe even troubled.
 
ecofarm said:
No one is being sentenced to prison. The courts have nothing to do with this. No crime need be committed or proven. The removal of the President via impeachment is a political process.
Click to expand...

Prison has nothing to do with it. The House had the opportunity to enforce their subpoenas for witnesses through the courts. They elected not to. The question of executive privilege should resound to the SC for a ruling. Roberts is not the SC. He is only one vote on the court.
 
humbolt said:
Prison has nothing to do with it. The House had the opportunity to enforce their subpoenas for witnesses through the courts. They elected not to. The question of executive privilege should resound to the SC for a ruling. Roberts is not the SC. He is only one vote on the court.
Click to expand...

That's stupid. Trump and his cronies were attempting to obstruct justice by tying subpoenas up in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom