Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT

[justabubba]

Like I said, the man must be full of ****. /s

if his client did release the material covertly, this would be an excellent ruse to move the focus off of bolton, himself, as the person responsible for the well-timed disclosure

 

[Barnacle]

that material is in the hands of the publisher
easy way to authenticate whether those words were written by bolton

So, we're going in circles, right? The NYT is printing hearsay because they don't have the manuscript. :lol:

 

[justabubba]

So, we're going in circles, right? The NYT is printing hearsay because they don't have the manuscript. :lol:

they are certainly sharing what they believe to be an authentic portion of the manuscript

so, share with us the point you have to offer

 

[Hatuey]

Imagine thinking Devin Nunes is a perfectly honest human being.

That's crazy.

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

 

[maxparrish]

In their first day of arguments on Saturday, the president’s lawyers argued for two hours that Democrats had failed to make a compelling case and were relying on circumstantial evidence to conclude that the Republican president had conditioned aid to Ukraine on investigations that could benefit him politically. Mr. Bolton’s manuscript would provide a first-person account of the president doing precisely that.

Bolton Claim Set to Scramble Impeachment Proceedings - WSJ

It seems that confirming bias and selective cognition is now at epidemic proportions among the Trump critics in this forum. No matter how many times y'all are instructed on the definition of evidence or how it may or may not be present in the testimony of a person of interest (a "witness") y'all can't resist making unsupported assumptions and then conclusion jumping as "fact".

We are UNAWARE of what Bolton saw or heard, as well as what he thinks he saw or heard. Therefore we have NO EVIDENCE and we have little assurance that he was a "witness" to any evidence.

All we have is hearsay; a couple of NYTimes "journalists" who report "characterizations" they say were made by anonymous sources who made characterizations derived from their assumed reading of a Bolton manuscript.

So obviously this doesn't demonstrate what Bolton's manuscript would provide; it only demonstrates what someone told somone who told you what they think means AND EVEN THEN they didn't say it means "Republican president had conditioned aid to Ukraine on investigations that could benefit him politically." - that's your dishonest embellishment.

These second hand characterizations only maintained that Trump conveyed "what should be done", not what actually happened, what resulted, or his role in it. Trump vented that Mueller should be fired for months to anyone who would listen, but he wasn't fired, was he?

So until such time as Bolton is willing to publish or testify EXACTLY what he heard and knows to be fact, we don't know if he is a witness to anything of relevance to the articles. And only a fool claim "truth" based on what is conveyed by bias'ed reporters claiming to convey impressions by unknown and biased leakers.

But then again, there are many willing fools here, aren't there?

 

[Barnacle]

they are certainly sharing what they believe to be an authentic portion of the manuscript
so, share with us the point you have to offer

What portion?!? Where did the NYT say they actually have something?!?

"... The New York Times report, which was sourced by "multiple people" who described Bolton's book but cited no direct quotes from his drafts, ..."

Bolton lawyer blames book leak on 'corrupted' review process


"... Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him ..."

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill


And for conspiracy addicts :

"A source close to the Trump administration informs Breitbart News that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the National Security Council (NSC), is in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former NSC officials. ..."

Source: Alexander Vindman's Brother, Yevgeny, Clears Publications by NSC Officials

 

[vesper]

I seem to recall that he did testify under oath thst he did not have any contact with the WB or have any direct knowledge of who it was. If Vindman is the leaker, he committed perjury or is practicing plausable deniability.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I remember Shifty jumping in so Vindman had an opportunity not to answer. This matches the same behavior according to reports Shifty did in the SCIF with Republicans when they would ask certain questions of the witnesses that Shifty handpicked. He would not allow them to answer. There is something else that is troubling and that is Shifty only went to the Senate with 17 of the 18 testimony depositions. The 18th Shifty marked 'secret'. It was the testimony of the IG Atkinson in regard to the so called whistleblower. Republicans are not permitted to talk about that direct testimony because Shifty labeled it 'secret' but have commented that it needs to released because it shows the alleged 'whistleblower' to have a credibility problem and that it highlights his involvement with the Schiff office including his aides prior to filing his complaint.

Now if the Senate votes to call witnesses and certain documents then the whistleblower needs to be called first on behalf of the defense. The issue of the Biden's in regard to corruption can be dealt with the numerous government documents several already have been obtained through the Sunshine Act FOIA. Heck Trump has the right to declassify all documents that he is aware of that show corruption with Biden's and other Democrats during the Obama administration in regard to Ukraine for years, and leading up to and during the 2016 election.

Let the dems call Bolton. As long as his new book is under review by the NSC Bolton can not talk about the content. Let them and Bolton dance that dance. But in turn the defense calls the whistleblower and the Schiff hits the fan.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The only proper course would be to find out if Bolton, in fact, knows anything that’s relevant to the hearings. There’s every indication that he has knowledge relevant to the investigation, and therefore the Senate should both subpoena this manuscript and compel Bolton’s testimony.

 

[Divine_Wind]

The only proper course would be to find out if Bolton, in fact, knows anything that’s relevant to the hearings. There’s every indication that he has knowledge relevant to the investigation, and therefore the Senate should both subpoena this manuscript and compel Bolton’s testimony.

Of course he knows. So does Pompeo and Rudy. That's why Trump ordered them to disregard subpoenas and is doing his best to cover-up all that happened with the Republican party backing him in doing so. I suspect Nunes is just as dirty as Trump. While Trump may never see the inside of a jail cell, Nunes and a few others may not be so lucky.

 

[Divine_Wind]

What portion?!? Where did the NYT say they actually have something?!?

"... The New York Times report, which was sourced by "multiple people" who described Bolton's book but cited no direct quotes from his drafts, ..."

Bolton lawyer blames book leak on 'corrupted' review process


"... Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him ..."

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill


And for conspiracy addicts :

"A source close to the Trump administration informs Breitbart News that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the National Security Council (NSC), is in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former NSC officials. ..."

Source: Alexander Vindman's Brother, Yevgeny, Clears Publications by NSC Officials

I strongly doubt any military officer would violate their oath by breaching security. OTOH, any secretary or other civilian worker would be able to do it. As the linked article notes, there were a lot of eyes on this manuscript over the past three weeks.

 

[VanceMack]

The New York Times, huh?

:lamo

"Baquet: OK. I mean, let me go back a little bit for one second to just repeat what I said in my in my short preamble about coverage. Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.

The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?"

But they arent biased or anything They arent trying to frame a narrative or create a result or anything. TOTALLY trustworthy...

:lamo

 

[Bullseye]

This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill

"Should be"? Not "will be"? or "are"?

Didn't we already have other testimony that Trump discussed delaying the aid or connecting it to Ukraine starting investigations? Point is, no evidence exists that it was ever expressed to Ukraine.
Yet another nothingburger.

 

[Divine_Wind]

The New York Times, huh?

:lamo

"Baquet: OK. I mean, let me go back a little bit for one second to just repeat what I said in my in my short preamble about coverage. Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.

The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, “Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.” And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?"

But they arent biased or anything They arent trying to frame a narrative or create a result or anything. TOTALLY trustworthy...

:lamo

Are you saying that Bolton's lawyer, who confirmed the story, was lying?

 

[joko104]

Bolton's lawyer said so in a statement ...

hJonathan Swan
@jonathanvswan
BREAKING: Statement from Bolton's lawyer Chuck Cooper. Story TK.
Image
7:26 PM · Jan 26, 2020·Twitter Web App

Countries don't really need spies anymore for the USA. They have the American press and media doing this for them.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

"Should be"? Not "will be"? or "are"?

Didn't we already have other testimony that Trump discussed delaying the aid or connecting it to Ukraine starting investigations? Point is, no evidence exists that it was ever expressed to Ukraine.
Yet another nothingburger.

Ukraine knew in July that the aid was frozen...

 

[HumblePi]

It seems that confirming bias and selective cognition is now at epidemic proportions among the Trump critics in this forum. No matter how many times y'all are instructed on the definition of evidence or how it may or may not be present in the testimony of a person of interest (a "witness") y'all can't resist making unsupported assumptions and then conclusion jumping as "fact".

We are UNAWARE of what Bolton saw or heard, as well as what he thinks he saw or heard. Therefore we have NO EVIDENCE and we have little assurance that he was a "witness" to any evidence.

All we have is hearsay; a couple of NYTimes "journalists" who report "characterizations" they say were made by anonymous sources who made characterizations derived from their assumed reading of a Bolton manuscript.

So obviously this doesn't demonstrate what Bolton's manuscript would provide; it only demonstrates what someone told somone who told you what they think means AND EVEN THEN they didn't say it means "Republican president had conditioned aid to Ukraine on investigations that could benefit him politically." - that's your dishonest embellishment.

These second hand characterizations only maintained that Trump conveyed "what should be done", not what actually happened, what resulted, or his role in it. Trump vented that Mueller should be fired for months to anyone who would listen, but he wasn't fired, was he?

So until such time as Bolton is willing to publish or testify EXACTLY what he heard and knows to be fact, we don't know if he is a witness to anything of relevance to the articles. And only a fool claim "truth" based on what is conveyed by bias'ed reporters claiming to convey impressions by unknown and biased leakers.

But then again, there are many willing fools here, aren't there?

There's a mountain, literally enough evidence through witness testimonies, phone calls, emails, WhatsAp and other collected evidence of crime that you'd have to be blind, deaf, living in Oshkosh or a Trump supporter not to understand it and confirm it.

 

[Bullseye]

Sondland told Ukraine that the aid was conditioned on the announcement of investigations so this is 100% false.

Tell that to the Ukraine president. Sondland changed his testimony from the basement hearing to the open hearing and then said definitively no to the question "was there a quid pro quo".

 

[joko104]

Are you saying that Bolton's lawyer, who confirmed the story, was lying?

Lying about what? He didn't confirm anything other than Bolton wrote a book, some government agency has it, and neither Bolton nor he told the NYT anything. So what?

 

[maxparrish]

The only proper course would be to find out if Bolton, in fact, knows anything that’s relevant to the hearings. There’s every indication that he has knowledge relevant to the investigation, and therefore the Senate should both subpoena this manuscript and compel Bolton’s testimony.

No, the House should withdraw its articles, and redo it's investigation and subpoena of witnesses. That should have been the process in a good faith impeachment investigation. The Senate is under no obligation to support the House managers and rescue them from their intentional bad faith screw up.

If the House feels its case is valid, then they need to go back and do their homework. Those grading their paper don't need to rewrite and then grade it for them.

 

[Moot]

Tell that to the Ukraine president. Sondland changed his testimony from the basement hearing to the open hearing and then said definitively no to the question "was there a quid pro quo".

Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is, yes."

 

[joko104]

Tell that to the Ukraine president. Sondland changed his testimony from the basement hearing to the open hearing and then said definitively no to the question "was there a quid pro quo".

Schiff explained on the first day he talked that the President of Ukraine is a liar and coward, explaining in his view what he is a liar and coward.

Persuasive, huh?

Prosecutor: "Ladies and gentle, the witness, also who we say is the victim, with the most direct personal knowledge said the defendant did not commit the crime. Even though a tape recording confirms this, I know the witness is a liar and coward. The proof that he is a liar is because he didn't say what I wanted him to say - and the reason is because he's a coward and cowards are liars."

The trial really is the worst legal clown car I've ever seen. How many ways can we break all the rules of evidence, rules of court, rule of law, presumption of innocence, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights? That is the prosecutor's case.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

No, the House should withdraw its articles, and redo it's investigation and subpoena of witnesses. That should have been the process in a good faith impeachment investigation. The Senate is under no obligation to support the House managers and rescue them from their intentional bad faith screw up.

If the House feels its case is valid, then they need to go back and do their homework. Those grading their paper don't need to rewrite and then grade it for them.

Every single impeachment trial has had witnesses. Your post has no basis in reality. You have no concern for a President abusing the office for personal gain. You don’t care about this country.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Lying about what? He didn't confirm anything other than Bolton wrote a book, some government agency has it, and neither Bolton nor he told the NYT anything. So what?

Fox news indicates the story is true. Bolton'''s manuscript leaks on same day Amazon sales begin, prompting conservative skepticism | Fox News

Bolton's lawyer indicates the book was truthful and subject to review:
Bolton letter

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

 

[trouble13]

why not reveal the actual publisher's galley
that would expose the (in)authenticity of what bolton had written

Perhaps after the WH vets the information in it, they will


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Barnacle]

Are you saying that Bolton's lawyer, who confirmed the story, was lying?

What exactly did Bolton's lawyer confirm?