John Bolton fired by President Trump - BREAKING

[squatz1]

Breaking news which came out a couple of hours ago.

John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, has been fired by Trump. Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc. Bolton had feuded with many in the administration on many occassions, including President Trump, Sec of State Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth.

Would love to hear what people think about this firing, as this really did come out of left field.

[1714854246]

1714854246

[TECSHARE]

Breaking news which came out a couple of hours ago.

John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, has been fired by Trump. Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc. Bolton had feuded with many in the administration on many occassions, including President Trump, Sec of State Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth.

Would love to hear what people think about this firing, as this really did come out of left field.

IMO he was just using him to keep the hawks off balance and satiated like they had an in for a while. A keep your enemies closer kind of thing. I feel like he had a rather tight leash on him during his tenure and was using him as a bogey man/sock puppet to keep people distracted. Now that the military is shifting its focus toward Asia, the old Middle East war hawks are increasingly irrelevant. This is in addition to him now having more control over this whole clusterfuck Russia collusion narrative. He now has a lot of the individuals responsible for this coup attempt by the balls, and as a result he has a lot more room to resist the Neocon/RINO establishment.

[Spendulus]

Breaking news which came out a couple of hours ago.

John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, has been fired by Trump. Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc. Bolton had feuded with many in the administration on many occassions, including President Trump, Sec of State Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth.

Would love to hear what people think about this firing, as this really did come out of left field.

I'd reinstall Flynn. But that's just me...

[Vod]

He claims he resigned.   You believe Trump??

[TECSHARE]

Breaking news which came out a couple of hours ago.

John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, has been fired by Trump. Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc. Bolton had feuded with many in the administration on many occassions, including President Trump, Sec of State Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth.

Would love to hear what people think about this firing, as this really did come out of left field.

I'd reinstall Flynn. But that's just me...

Can you imagine the raucous autistic screeching that would occur if Trump pardoned him and appointed him to a cabinet position? The funniest part is it would just draw more attention to him being steamrolled illegally.

[Spendulus]

He claims he resigned.   You believe Trump??

Resigning and being fired are often the same thing.

Also - A letter of resignation is not effective unless accepted. Some bosses get a letter of resignation on the first day of hire, and hold on to it until they want to execute it.

Breaking news which came out a couple of hours ago.

John Bolton, Trumps National Security Advisor, has been fired by Trump. Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc. Bolton had feuded with many in the administration on many occassions, including President Trump, Sec of State Mike Pompeo, and so on and so forth.

Would love to hear what people think about this firing, as this really did come out of left field.

I'd reinstall Flynn. But that's just me...

Can you imagine the raucous autistic screeching that would occur if Trump pardoned him and appointed him to a cabinet position? The funniest part is it would just draw more attention to him being steamrolled illegally.

I'd love it. Reverse Kavanaugh tactic.

[squatz1]

He claims he resigned.   You believe Trump??

He claims he resigned, Trump says he fired him. I don't think it really matters, though I do think that Trump fired him. I guess it could also be an issue of Trump asking for a resignation could be interpreted as resignation by Bolton if he was to just say yes and agree to resign.

This is just more drama in an administration which is filled with it.

Can't wait to see who replaces Bolton though, this will show the way that Trump is planning to go on foreign policy for his releection.

[tvbcof]

...
Can't wait to see who replaces Bolton though, this will show the way that Trump is planning to go on foreign policy for his releection.

Based on Trump's performance so far I'm expecting him to find someone even worse than Bolton.  It's hard to think of any worse un-American traitor off-hand.  Maybe Joe Lieberman?  Rabbi Dov Zakhiem perhaps?  Probably it'll be Jarred Kushner.

Need a hard-core Zionist for the upcoming war with Iran.  Someone who will nuke the non-chosen en-mass and who has the guts to sacrifice a bunch of the 'chosen' as well.  'Burnt Offerings' dontcha know?  It'll be worth it to usher in the Messianic Age.

[squatz1]

...
Can't wait to see who replaces Bolton though, this will show the way that Trump is planning to go on foreign policy for his releection.

Based on Trump's performance so far I'm expecting him to find someone even worse than Bolton.  It's hard to think of any worse un-American traitor off-hand.  Maybe Joe Lieberman?  Rabbi Dov Zakhiem perhaps?  Probably it'll be Jarred Kushner.

Need a hard-core Zionist for the upcoming war with Iran.  Someone who will nuke the non-chosen en-mass and who has the guts to sacrifice a bunch of the 'chosen' as well.  'Burnt Offerings' dontcha know?  It'll be worth it to usher in the Messianic Age.

Honestly at this point it's pretty tough to find someone worse then Bolton, as he's a hawk.

He's going to pick someone who has little to no ideology (or if one, maybe someone that wants to end foreign wars) and they're just going to be at Trumps pleasure. So yeah, don't expect this pick to be too crazy.

[Jet Cash]

There are a few people looking for jobs at the moment. Theresa May, and Bercow for example. Angela Merkel could help him with immigration. Juan Guaidó  could help him to take control of countries with un-American politics.

[tvbcof]

Word is that Adelson told Trump to put in Bolton or else.  From:  https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/59jbvk/what-you-need-to-know-about-super-hawk-john-bolton

“He’s a bomb thrower,” Ailes said of Bolton. “And a strange little fucker. But you need him.”

I'd bet money that Bolton has 'been over to Epstein's house' so-to-speak and that's why he's out on his keister.  More to follow.  Probably half of Trump's team has done the dirty.  Likely more than half.

[squatz1]

Word is that Adelson told Trump to put in Bolton or else.  From:  https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/59jbvk/what-you-need-to-know-about-super-hawk-john-bolton

“He’s a bomb thrower,” Ailes said of Bolton. “And a strange little fucker. But you need him.”

I'd bet money that Bolton has 'been over to Epstein's house' so-to-speak and that's why he's out on his keister.  More to follow.  Probably half of Trump's team has done the dirty.  Likely more than half.

Woah. That's an insane allegation to attempt to make, and I doubt that's the case.

Trump picked him because he was on fox news all the time defending the Trump admin, shitting on Obama and Clinton, and so on. He was someone who was big on America first, and Trump thought that'd he would be loyal to the admin and would provide expertise ( as he is a smart guy)

[tvbcof]

Word is that Adelson told Trump to put in Bolton or else.  From:  https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/59jbvk/what-you-need-to-know-about-super-hawk-john-bolton

“He’s a bomb thrower,” Ailes said of Bolton. “And a strange little fucker. But you need him.”

I'd bet money that Bolton has 'been over to Epstein's house' so-to-speak and that's why he's out on his keister.  More to follow.  Probably half of Trump's team has done the dirty.  Likely more than half.

Woah. That's an insane allegation to attempt to make, and I doubt that's the case.

Trump picked him because he was on fox news all the time defending the Trump admin, shitting on Obama and Clinton, and so on. He was someone who was big on America first, and Trump thought that'd he would be loyal to the admin and would provide expertise ( as he is a smart guy)

Lol.  I'd hate to meet an 'America Last' person then!  And being called a 'strange little fucker' by the likes of Roger Ailes is quite an accomplishment.  I'm sure Ailes has his reasons.

Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn.  You clearly don't have have a very clear picture of what we're dealing with here.  Don't worry; it'll come into focus...just not on Jewtube.  There is a reason for the desperation behind the censorship push and it is a LOT bigger than just 'picking on right-wingers.'

[theymos]

It was a terrible decision to hire him in the first place. Bolton is a merciless warmonger who's never heard of an intervention he didn't like.

I like that Trump has lately been particularly anti-war, apparently actively seeking to reduce war risk in Afghanistan and Iran. He's probably more anti-war than all but a couple of the Democratic candidates would be, surprisingly. The neocon establishment still has a lot of influence over him, though: just look at the fact that Pompeo is secretary of state.

[Oxstone]

A letter of resignation is not effective unless accepted. Some bosses get a letter of resignation on the first day of hire, and hold on to it until they want to execute it.

What?
Non-US here, how the hell does that work? If you want to resign and your boss refuses you're supposed to continue working? Oo

Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc

IMO he was just using him to keep the hawks off balance and satiated like they had an in for a while.

Again, non US here, what does hawk mean? Both wikipedia and linguee agree on the fact that it's a bird but I guess it's also English slang for something else, anyone could give me a small definition?

[squatz1]

A letter of resignation is not effective unless accepted. Some bosses get a letter of resignation on the first day of hire, and hold on to it until they want to execute it.

What?
Non-US here, how the hell does that work? If you want to resign and your boss refuses you're supposed to continue working? Oo

Bolton is known for being a hawk and supporting regime change in Iran, North Korea, etc

IMO he was just using him to keep the hawks off balance and satiated like they had an in for a while.

Again, non US here, what does hawk mean? Both wikipedia and linguee agree on the fact that it's a bird but I guess it's also English slang for something else, anyone could give me a small definition?

Hawk means that someone who supports war, someone who wants would much rather use military force and threats rather down diplomacy. Doves would be the opposite.

In the US, sometimes Presidents will ask a collection of cabinet members (or anyone that they can hire and fire as they please) for their resignation and then they'll pick who they want to allow to resign. Resigning would, in theory, allow for someone to collect benefits if they're eligible instead of just being fired. Plus there is much more decency in just resigning instead of being fired.

Take Preet Bharara as an example. Trumps DOJ, when they first came in, asked some federal attorneys for their resignations. Preet had been one of them, and he failed to give in his resignation. He was then terminated.

[Oxstone]

In the US, sometimes Presidents will ask a collection of cabinet members (or anyone that they can hire and fire as they please) for their resignation and then they'll pick who they want to allow to resign. Resigning would, in theory, allow for someone to collect benefits if they're eligible instead of just being fired. Plus there is much more decency in just resigning instead of being fired.

Take Preet Bharara as an example. Trumps DOJ, when they first came in, asked some federal attorneys for their resignations. Preet had been one of them, and he failed to give in his resignation. He was then terminated.

Thanks a lot! So that's something specific to cabinet members, if you're a random worker you don't have to wait for your boss to accept your resignation?

[squatz1]

In the US, sometimes Presidents will ask a collection of cabinet members (or anyone that they can hire and fire as they please) for their resignation and then they'll pick who they want to allow to resign. Resigning would, in theory, allow for someone to collect benefits if they're eligible instead of just being fired. Plus there is much more decency in just resigning instead of being fired.

Take Preet Bharara as an example. Trumps DOJ, when they first came in, asked some federal attorneys for their resignations. Preet had been one of them, and he failed to give in his resignation. He was then terminated.

Thanks a lot! So that's something specific to cabinet members, if you're a random worker you don't have to wait for your boss to accept your resignation?

I wouldn't say its specific to cabinet members, nor the President.

Your boss could ask for your resignation if you've been there for 10 years and you're eligible for a pension, or healthcare in retirement. And instead of fighting it and being fired, you could accept whatever your job is giving you to walk away -- instead of having to be fired and losing all of this (if you had done something wrong on the job)

But I know that it is most typically cited as being done in politics. As you want a team of people below you who support your cause.

[BADecker]

Will Another John Bolton Replace John Bolton?


Bolton may be gone, but Boltonism lives on. Those believing that the end of Bolton would signal a return to the foreign policy of candidate Donald Trump, however, may be disappointed. President Trump has appointed Charles Kupperman to temporarily fill in for John Bolton as National Security Advisor. Kupperman is one of Bolton's closest friends and allies in Washington. Plus - What have we learned since 9/11?


Will Another John Bolton Replace John Bolton?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sLqUHMxhpU

[dantee1]

The firing was a good move but I don't like how President Trump talked the reasons he fired him to the media, making it look like though it was influenced by the North Korea. Yes, he suggested Libya type of solution for North Korea. That's just a suggestion and should be kept secret. Telling the media about it is a complete off for me.

[Flying Hellfish]

just look at the fact that Pompeo is secretary of state.

Inb4 Pompeo is named the next NSA (Kissinger anyone) lol.

[tvbcof]

Replacement is one Robert O'Brien.  Bolton underling and ardent Zionist.  Who could have guessed???

[Masha Sha]

the reality will not change with his departure, even if some wish it very strongly...

[PrimeNumber7]

Bolton is claiming in his book that Trump asked President Xi to buy up farm goods to help his re-election campaign.

I have no idea if this is true or not but this will be damaging to Trump politicallynot sure about this. Bolton has always wanted the US to basically be at war with nearly every country that isn’t our ally and even argued that a preemptive nuclear strike against NK would be appropriate. This is approximately the polar opposite of Trumps position on American wars. Bolton may be trying to get revenge for pulling troops out of Syria and/or Germany, he might be trying to get on the anti Trump bandwagon to make a few bucks, or it may be true.

I would expect Trump to get impeached again over this, however I doubt anything will come of it. I doubt impeaching Trump ~2 months (based on an estimate as to when this might happen) before an election probably won’t look good for Democrats, especially considering Trump was just acquitted for doing basically the same thing with another country earlier this year. I am not sure this would even be illegal.

The Trump DOJ sued Bolton yesterday to stop his book from being published on National security grounds, but what I assume is the most damaging excerpt was just published in the newspaper, probably making the suit moot.  

[TECSHARE]

Bolton is claiming in his book that Trump asked President Xi to buy up farm goods to help his re-election campaign.

I have no idea if this is true or not but this will be damaging to Trump politicallynot sure about this. Bolton has always wanted the US to basically be at war with nearly every country that isn’t our ally and even argued that a preemptive nuclear strike against NK would be appropriate. This is approximately the polar opposite of Trumps position on American wars. Bolton may be trying to get revenge for pulling troops out of Syria and/or Germany, he might be trying to get on the anti Trump bandwagon to make a few bucks, or it may be true.

I would expect Trump to get impeached again over this, however I doubt anything will come of it. I doubt impeaching Trump ~2 months (based on an estimate as to when this might happen) before an election probably won’t look good for Democrats, especially considering Trump was just acquitted for doing basically the same thing with another country earlier this year. I am not sure this would even be illegal.

The Trump DOJ sued Bolton yesterday to stop his book from being published on National security grounds, but what I assume is the most damaging excerpt was just published in the newspaper, probably making the suit moot.  

OH THE HUMANITY! YOU ARE TELLING ME TRUMP TRIED TO IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE HOPES OF RE-ELECTION?! THIS MUST NOT STAND!

FYI, it doesn't make the suit moot at all. If anything it fucks him twice as hard because he is required by law to get everything he publishes pre-approved as a condition of his security clearance.

[PrimeNumber7]

I think the claim, if believed would have caused Trump to lose votes in January during impeachment. It would have been a stronger argument that Trump engaged in a Quid Pro Quo with Xi.

Bolton was free to talk to the press about this during impeachment, even if he had not been asked to testify. Bolton going to the press about this would have given enough pressure on Senate Republicans to allow him to testify.

I have doubts about the accuracy of Bolton’s account. If he thought this was wrong or illegal, he should have immediately resigned, instead he waited months to get fired. He also could have gone public with his claims, but instead waited 5 months to make probably millions off a book. All this diminishes his credibility and should make voters question his motives.

The purpose of the lawsuit was to stop the book from being published. Based on the fact that WSJ has reported some of the books content and what I assume is the most damaging part, it would be more difficult to argue for stopping the book from being published.   

[squatz1]

Bolton is claiming in his book that Trump asked President Xi to buy up farm goods to help his re-election campaign.

I have no idea if this is true or not but this will be damaging to Trump politicallynot sure about this. Bolton has always wanted the US to basically be at war with nearly every country that isn’t our ally and even argued that a preemptive nuclear strike against NK would be appropriate. This is approximately the polar opposite of Trumps position on American wars. Bolton may be trying to get revenge for pulling troops out of Syria and/or Germany, he might be trying to get on the anti Trump bandwagon to make a few bucks, or it may be true.

I would expect Trump to get impeached again over this, however I doubt anything will come of it. I doubt impeaching Trump ~2 months (based on an estimate as to when this might happen) before an election probably won’t look good for Democrats, especially considering Trump was just acquitted for doing basically the same thing with another country earlier this year. I am not sure this would even be illegal.

The Trump DOJ sued Bolton yesterday to stop his book from being published on National security grounds, but what I assume is the most damaging excerpt was just published in the newspaper, probably making the suit moot.  

First time I've ever thought that people would be backing Bolton. Guy is typically horribly unpopular because of his warhawk views on everything. Problem is that Trump knew all of these things, and hired him anyway. Guy was a hawk, acted like a hawk, and then was fired. Trump even encouraged his hawk views at certain points.

Yeah the most damaging excerpt is out. Only way Trump can get out of this unscathed (mostly) if he's able to prove that Bolton is

#1) Another lying disgruntled employee --> Though this one is hard to prove now, too many of these in the admin.

#2) Outright Lying --> Have Xi come out and administration (non political appointed) people come out and say that this isn't true. Releasing some sort of documentation to back them.

#3) Show that he just made some shit up for the money.

This is going to be a rough time for the administration if they're unable to spin this properly. But yeah -- this coming out in a book is some pretty big BS. Should've blown the whistle the proper way if he didn't care about just making $$$

[TwitchySeal]

Bolton is claiming in his book that Trump asked President Xi to buy up farm goods to help his re-election campaign.

I have no idea if this is true or not but this will be damaging to Trump politicallynot sure about this. Bolton has always wanted the US to basically be at war with nearly every country that isn’t our ally and even argued that a preemptive nuclear strike against NK would be appropriate. This is approximately the polar opposite of Trumps position on American wars. Bolton may be trying to get revenge for pulling troops out of Syria and/or Germany, he might be trying to get on the anti Trump bandwagon to make a few bucks, or it may be true.

I would expect Trump to get impeached again over this, however I doubt anything will come of it. I doubt impeaching Trump ~2 months (based on an estimate as to when this might happen) before an election probably won’t look good for Democrats, especially considering Trump was just acquitted for doing basically the same thing with another country earlier this year. I am not sure this would even be illegal.

The Trump DOJ sued Bolton yesterday to stop his book from being published on National security grounds, but what I assume is the most damaging excerpt was just published in the newspaper, probably making the suit moot.  

I think the damage will be done by the claim that Trump told President Xi to build more concentration camps for Uighurs (muslims born in China) in China while the US is very publicly 'anti concentration camps'.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-bolton-the-scandal-of-trumps-china-policy-11592419564

Beijing's repression of its Uighur citizens also proceeded apace. Trump asked me at the 2018 White House Christmas dinner why we were considering sanctioning China over its treatment of the Uighurs, a largely Muslim people who live primarily in China's northwest Xinjiang Province.

At the opening dinner of the Osaka G-20 meeting in June 2019, with only interpreters present, Xi had explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang. According to our interpreter, Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do. The National Security Council's top Asia staffer, Matthew Pottinger, told me that Trump said something very similar during his November 2017 trip to China.

I copied the text of the excerpt for anyone unable to access the WSJ article: https://pastebin.com/dvJhENAr

Anyone interested in the details of these camps should definitely give this a read: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html

Fucking horrible.

[PrimeNumber7]

Bolton is claiming in his book that Trump asked President Xi to buy up farm goods to help his re-election campaign.

I have no idea if this is true or not but this will be damaging to Trump politicallynot sure about this. Bolton has always wanted the US to basically be at war with nearly every country that isn’t our ally and even argued that a preemptive nuclear strike against NK would be appropriate. This is approximately the polar opposite of Trumps position on American wars. Bolton may be trying to get revenge for pulling troops out of Syria and/or Germany, he might be trying to get on the anti Trump bandwagon to make a few bucks, or it may be true.

I would expect Trump to get impeached again over this, however I doubt anything will come of it. I doubt impeaching Trump ~2 months (based on an estimate as to when this might happen) before an election probably won’t look good for Democrats, especially considering Trump was just acquitted for doing basically the same thing with another country earlier this year. I am not sure this would even be illegal.

The Trump DOJ sued Bolton yesterday to stop his book from being published on National security grounds, but what I assume is the most damaging excerpt was just published in the newspaper, probably making the suit moot. 

First time I've ever thought that people would be backing Bolton. Guy is typically horribly unpopular because of his warhawk views on everything. Problem is that Trump knew all of these things, and hired him anyway. Guy was a hawk, acted like a hawk, and then was fired. Trump even encouraged his hawk views at certain points.

He was hired not long before Trump's first meeting with Kim Jun Un. It was speculated at the time that the purpose of bringing him on was to show Kim that Trump was willing to go to war with NK, or otherwise pursue military action if necessary so to get Kim to agree to denuclearize.

Yeah the most damaging excerpt is out. Only way Trump can get out of this unscathed (mostly) if he's able to prove that Bolton is
<>
#3) Show that he just made some shit up for the money.

Bolton basically says in his book that Trump should be removed from office and that Democrats could have gotten Trump removed from office if they looked at his other foreign policy. However, Bolton's name also came up during impeachment and he could have gone to the press at that time and/or testified. Instead, Bolton waited months to publish a book and likely made millions doing so.

Bolton's book deal was made public on November 9, 2019, but two days earlier, much of the substance of the impeachment inquiry was already public, and the substances of the testimony was public. This timeline indicates that Bolton might have crafted his book pitch based on what was being said during impeachment rather than based on the whole truth.

I think the damage will be done by the claim that Trump told President Xi to build more concentration camps for Uighurs (muslims born in China) in China while the US is very publicly 'anti concentration camps'. 

<>

Fucking horrible.

You are taking what Bolten is saying that is damaging to Trump at face value. Many in the media also assume anything Trump says to be a lie/fabrication without irrefutable proof. This is a bad double standard to use, and basically prevents any substantive discourse. I blame social media giving incentives to reporters to make crazy claims to get more likes and views.

In addition to the US publicly being against concentration camps (a standard set by the administration), Trump's history on religious freedom removes credibility to this claim.

Even if this statement was shown to be true, I would want to know how specifically the translators described the concentration camps, and the specific language used by Xi. In 2001, the US basically used an alternate translation of words to get several airmen released from China after a military plane crash. You could use a worse case assumption to conclude that Xi was referring to the concentration camps, but Xi may have described them not as harshly.

I would also point out that many of Trump's critics personally profit from what amounts to slave labor out of China, and may even be profiting from these very same concentration camps. I would be interested to see their comments on this particular point in Bolton's book.

[TwitchySeal]

I think the damage will be done by the claim that Trump told President Xi to build more concentration camps for Uighurs (muslims born in China) in China while the US is very publicly 'anti concentration camps'. 

<>

Fucking horrible.

You are taking what Bolten is saying that is damaging to Trump at face value. Many in the media also assume anything Trump says to be a lie/fabrication without irrefutable proof. This is a bad double standard to use, and basically prevents any substantive discourse. I blame social media giving incentives to reporters to make crazy claims to get more likes and views.

In addition to the US publicly being against concentration camps (a standard set by the administration), Trump's history on religious freedom removes credibility to this claim.

Even if this statement was shown to be true, I would want to know how specifically the translators described the concentration camps, and the specific language used by Xi. In 2001, the US basically used an alternate translation of words to get several airmen released from China after a military plane crash. You could use a worse case assumption to conclude that Xi was referring to the concentration camps, but Xi may have described them not as harshly.

You're right, it can't be proven one way or the other.  But Trumps only rebuttal is just "it's all made up stories, he's just trying to make me look bad, all the sources are fake, the book (which hasn't been published) is getting terrible reviews!"   He makes the same play against anyone who criticizes him, whether it's a 4 star general or a reality TV star.  It's also been proven countless times that something he calls 'fake news' ends up being proven true weeks or months later.  Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt at this point seems very misguided.

He's also made it very clear by his actions, or inaction, that he's willing to look the other way on human rights if he thinks being friendly with guys like Duterte, Xi, or Kim Jong Un increases the chances of him being able declare a political victory.  It's part of deal making, and it's rarely black and white...but the case of the concentration camps it is black and white.  They are horrible and unethical on every level.  Looking the other way or deciding against sanctions for whatever reason is one thing, but not caring or even encouraging them?  That should not be ok.

I think the most likely reality is that Trump did convey the message that Bolton claims he did not because he actually wants Xi to build more concentration camps, just because he genuinely doesn't care whether they exist or not.  All that matters is his path to reelection. 

I would also point out that many of Trump's critics personally profit from what amounts to slave labor out of China, and may even be profiting from these very same concentration camps. I would be interested to see their comments on this particular point in Bolton's book.

This isn't about sweat factorys.  They're literally trying to stop millions of Muslims from being Muslim.  Give this a read: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html

[PrimeNumber7]

I think the damage will be done by the claim that Trump told President Xi to build more concentration camps for Uighurs (muslims born in China) in China while the US is very publicly 'anti concentration camps'. 

<>

Fucking horrible.

You are taking what Bolten is saying that is damaging to Trump at face value. Many in the media also assume anything Trump says to be a lie/fabrication without irrefutable proof. This is a bad double standard to use, and basically prevents any substantive discourse. I blame social media giving incentives to reporters to make crazy claims to get more likes and views.

In addition to the US publicly being against concentration camps (a standard set by the administration), Trump's history on religious freedom removes credibility to this claim.

Even if this statement was shown to be true, I would want to know how specifically the translators described the concentration camps, and the specific language used by Xi. In 2001, the US basically used an alternate translation of words to get several airmen released from China after a military plane crash. You could use a worse case assumption to conclude that Xi was referring to the concentration camps, but Xi may have described them not as harshly.

You're right, it can't be proven one way or the other.  But Trumps only rebuttal is just "it's all made up stories, he's just trying to make me look bad, all the sources are fake, the book (which hasn't been published) is getting terrible reviews!"   He makes the same play against anyone who criticizes him, whether it's a 4 star general or a reality TV star.  It's also been proven countless times that something he calls 'fake news' ends up being proven true weeks or months later.  Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt at this point seems very misguided.

In early 2019, there was a Buzzfeed article that was quickly refuted by all possible sources to the article, and days later, they announced layoffs. My conclusion at the time was that a reporter had been tipped off about the layoffs ahead of time and was trying to either stop the layoffs or to save his own job via generating extra clicks on what can be described as a made-up story. This is an extreme example, but there are many other examples of stories that have proven to be false, and others that are so outrageous that they are not fit to get published in a tabloid, yet somehow make their way into major newspapers. Do you seriously think the President of the United States, who is worth $11 billion really eats big macs in bed?

As with any other outrageous claim, I would say that Bolten needs to provide proof of shut up. Similarly, as with other outrageous claims about Trump, many on the left likely believes the claim before hearing about them.

As a FYI, books don't need to be published to get reviewed. The reporting that has been done was done specifically because the media was given copies of the book before it was available to the public.

He's also made it very clear by his actions, or inaction, that he's willing to look the other way on human rights if he thinks being friendly with guys like Duterte, Xi, or Kim Jong Un increases the chances of him being able declare a political victory.  It's part of deal making, and it's rarely black and white...but the case of the concentration camps it is black and white.  They are horrible and unethical on every level.  Looking the other way or deciding against sanctions for whatever reason is one thing, but not caring or even encouraging them?  That should not be ok.

Trump looked the other way with Kim in an effort to prevent possible nuclear war. This is similar to the tradeoffs made when deciding to drop nukes on Japon during WW2.

I think the most likely reality is that Trump did convey the message that Bolton claims he did not because he actually wants Xi to build more concentration camps, just because he genuinely doesn't care whether they exist or not.  All that matters is his path to reelection. 

All foreign policy decisions are ultimately political. Presidents have campaigned over the years on being tough on foreign adversaries, and on ending wars. Presidents need congress to declare war and needs the consent of the Senate to ratify any peace treaty to end a war, both of which are political entities.

I would also point out that many of Trump's critics personally profit from what amounts to slave labor out of China, and may even be profiting from these very same concentration camps. I would be interested to see their comments on this particular point in Bolton's book.

This isn't about sweat factorys.  They're literally trying to stop millions of Muslims from being Muslim.  Give this a read: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html

I created a thread at the time those documents were published. Yes, China is trying to "re-educate" Muslims, but who knows what else they are doing while they are in the concentration camps.

[squatz1]

snip - Lot of writing, had to snip.

You're right right when it comes to the first part about it being about the money for Bolton. The Democrats are currently saying the same thing -- as Bolton had every opportunity to sit in-front of Congress and come and talk, or at least try to do so (as the Administration would've put up a fight.) Here's the tweet from Schiff (https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1274888946682601473) as he talks about the fact that this was totally about the money for Bolton.

John Bolton is going to be hurt from doing this, the DOJ is 100% going to try to take away his book advance and remove whatever financial incentive the guy had to do this.

This book will lead to MANY investigations by the House Democrats -- unsure if they will have the same amount of news coverage as the Ukraine Scandal, as there are many other things in the world right now as the Coronavirus is still ravaging the nation.

As always, we'll see.

[PrimeNumber7]

snip - Lot of writing, had to snip.

You're right right when it comes to the first part about it being about the money for Bolton. The Democrats are currently saying the same thing -- as Bolton had every opportunity to sit in-front of Congress and come and talk, or at least try to do so (as the Administration would've put up a fight.) Here's the tweet from Schiff (https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1274888946682601473) as he talks about the fact that this was totally about the money for Bolton.

John Bolton is going to be hurt from doing this, the DOJ is 100% going to try to take away his book advance and remove whatever financial incentive the guy had to do this.

This book will lead to MANY investigations by the House Democrats -- unsure if they will have the same amount of news coverage as the Ukraine Scandal, as there are many other things in the world right now as the Coronavirus is still ravaging the nation.

As always, we'll see.

I would suspect that any DOJ lawsuit against Bolton would be dropped if Biden were to win. Likewise for any criminal charges.

I suspect the Democrats had ~all of the evidence and testimony ahead of time before they started the impeachment inquiry. This is based on Mr. Vinmen meeting with Shift's office before testifying, Pelosi saying publicly that she will not support impeachment without bipartisan support ~two weeks before announcing the impeachment inquiry, and the rules that heavily favored Democrats. This would not be the case with a Bolton impeachment, Bolton would have credibility issues, and there is the risk that Bolton could recant his testimony in the middle of a trial or inquiry, which might lead to a strong bipartisan vote against impeachment, or congress voting to impeach based on literally zero evidence. I think Democrats voting to impeach is just too risky for Democrats.

Trump is also very good at 4-D chess. When Bolton tweeted about being locked out of his Twitter account after impeachment, I had suspected at the time it was a ploy to get Democrats to call Bolton to testify.

I would say a 2nd Trump term would have a decent chance of an armed conflict with China, while a Biden administration would probably mean going back to allowing China to steal US IP, and possibly China exporting computer HW to the US in masse, which would only lead to spying on the US. Being a warmonger, Bolton should favor the former.

[TECSHARE]

It is not about the money. He knew very well he would be sued and have his profits taken because of the NDA he signed, and the review he never completed. This was about interfering in the 2020 election with another truckload of bullshit, standard dem SOP. Before you tell me he is not a dem, he is not a Republican either. He is what he is told to be by anyone who yanks his chain.

[TwitchySeal]

The NDAs are worthless because Trump doesn't own the country.  He's a federal employee that works for the United States which already has a system in place to determine what is and is not confidential.

"Trump NDAs can’t silence ex-White House officials: legal experts"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-nda/trump-ndas-cant-silence-ex-white-house-officials-legal-experts-idUSKBN1GV2UT

[TECSHARE]

The NDAs are worthless because Trump doesn't own the country.  He's a federal employee that works for the United States which already has a system in place to determine what is and is not confidential.

"Trump NDAs can’t silence ex-White House officials: legal experts"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-nda/trump-ndas-cant-silence-ex-white-house-officials-legal-experts-idUSKBN1GV2UT

"legal experts", that's cute. It is not "Trump's NDA", it is a long established system that existed as part of gaining a security clearance long before Trump arrived. This process is not new or unique to Trump. They do have a system in place, and Bolton never completed it, which is why he is getting sued, and maybe even criminally charged now that it was leaked.

[TwitchySeal]

The NDAs are worthless because Trump doesn't own the country.  He's a federal employee that works for the United States which already has a system in place to determine what is and is not confidential.

"Trump NDAs can’t silence ex-White House officials: legal experts"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-nda/trump-ndas-cant-silence-ex-white-house-officials-legal-experts-idUSKBN1GV2UT

"legal experts", that's cute. It is not "Trump's NDA", it is a long established system that existed as part of gaining a security clearance long before Trump arrived. This process is not new or unique to Trump. They do have a system in place, and Bolton never completed it, which is why he is getting sued, and maybe even criminally charged now that it was leaked.

The NDA and the classification systems are not the same thing.  The system is for protecting national security. Using it for any other reason, such as to prevent embarrassment of someone, would be unconstitutional.

Bolton's lawyer claims they went through the entire process and made every single edit that was requested by the NSC.  If he's telling the truth then I think this is just another case of Trump trying to get what he wants with empty legal threats. 

[TECSHARE]

The NDA and the classification systems are not the same thing.  The system is for protecting national security. Using it for any other reason, such as to prevent embarrassment of someone, would be unconstitutional.

Bolton's lawyer claims they went through the entire process and made every single edit that was requested by the NSC.  If he's telling the truth then I think this is just another case of Trump trying to get what he wants with empty legal threats. 

No one said they were the same thing. You are however required to sign an NDA as a condition of getting a classification clearance, and this was the established procedure long before Trump.

"The Justice Department sued Mr. Bolton on Tuesday, seeking to seize his proceeds from the memoir. It accused him of violating several agreements he had signed when taking the job to submit to the prepublication review process as a condition of receiving classified information."

"In a hearing conducted by telephone because of the pandemic, David M. Morrell, a Justice Department lawyer, said Mr. Bolton was in “flagrant breach” of his obligation to complete a prepublication review designed to ensure his book, “The Room Where It Happened,” has no classified information."

"It also submitted a declaration by a National Security Council official, Michael T. Ellis, saying the manuscript contained classified information, including an exceptionally restricted category that could reveal intelligence sources and methods."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/us/politics/john-bolton-book-hearing.html


He clearly did not complete the review process in spite of whatever Bolton says. If he did, he would have paperwork saying so. If you think these kind of high level operations work on a word, you are a fucking moron. This is a transparent attempt to leverage privileged information in an attempt to manipulate the upcoming election by a fired disgruntled war criminal. He is pissed that he didn't get what he wanted, and now he is exploiting his privileged information in an attempt to attack the administration in the hopes that it will prevent Trumps re-election. This is right out of the same playbook the dems have been using from day one of Trumps administration. None of you give a fuck about this country, you would turn it all to ashes, as long as you get to feel like you rule over the pile.

[squatz1]

snip - Lot of writing, had to snip.

You're right right when it comes to the first part about it being about the money for Bolton. The Democrats are currently saying the same thing -- as Bolton had every opportunity to sit in-front of Congress and come and talk, or at least try to do so (as the Administration would've put up a fight.) Here's the tweet from Schiff (https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1274888946682601473) as he talks about the fact that this was totally about the money for Bolton.

John Bolton is going to be hurt from doing this, the DOJ is 100% going to try to take away his book advance and remove whatever financial incentive the guy had to do this.

This book will lead to MANY investigations by the House Democrats -- unsure if they will have the same amount of news coverage as the Ukraine Scandal, as there are many other things in the world right now as the Coronavirus is still ravaging the nation.

As always, we'll see.

I would suspect that any DOJ lawsuit against Bolton would be dropped if Biden were to win. Likewise for any criminal charges.

I suspect the Democrats had ~all of the evidence and testimony ahead of time before they started the impeachment inquiry. This is based on Mr. Vinmen meeting with Shift's office before testifying, Pelosi saying publicly that she will not support impeachment without bipartisan support ~two weeks before announcing the impeachment inquiry, and the rules that heavily favored Democrats. This would not be the case with a Bolton impeachment, Bolton would have credibility issues, and there is the risk that Bolton could recant his testimony in the middle of a trial or inquiry, which might lead to a strong bipartisan vote against impeachment, or congress voting to impeach based on literally zero evidence. I think Democrats voting to impeach is just too risky for Democrats.

Trump is also very good at 4-D chess. When Bolton tweeted about being locked out of his Twitter account after impeachment, I had suspected at the time it was a ploy to get Democrats to call Bolton to testify.

I would say a 2nd Trump term would have a decent chance of an armed conflict with China, while a Biden administration would probably mean going back to allowing China to steal US IP, and possibly China exporting computer HW to the US in masse, which would only lead to spying on the US. Being a warmonger, Bolton should favor the former.

Not sure on a Biden administration dropping charges against Bolton, what the guy did is still illegal and they're going to want to set an example out of him either way. Especially due to the fact that he didn't whistle blow the proper way, he went out of his way to try to enrich himself with a book. Not a good look at all.

Democrats are most likely not going to impeach, too little time to the election and the voters really don't even care about this whole Bolton situation. Much more fixated on the response to the Coronavirus.

Would love to see China stop stealing IP from the US, but who knows if that'll ever happen -- under any adminstration.

[TwitchySeal]

The NDA and the classification systems are not the same thing.  The system is for protecting national security. Using it for any other reason, such as to prevent embarrassment of someone, would be unconstitutional.

Bolton's lawyer claims they went through the entire process and made every single edit that was requested by the NSC.  If he's telling the truth then I think this is just another case of Trump trying to get what he wants with empty legal threats.  

No one said they were the same thing. You are however required to sign an NDA as a condition of getting a classification clearance, and this was the established procedure long before Trump.

"The Justice Department sued Mr. Bolton on Tuesday, seeking to seize his proceeds from the memoir. It accused him of violating several agreements he had signed when taking the job to submit to the prepublication review process as a condition of receiving classified information."

"In a hearing conducted by telephone because of the pandemic, David M. Morrell, a Justice Department lawyer, said Mr. Bolton was in “flagrant breach” of his obligation to complete a prepublication review designed to ensure his book, “The Room Where It Happened,” has no classified information."

"It also submitted a declaration by a National Security Council official, Michael T. Ellis, saying the manuscript contained classified information, including an exceptionally restricted category that could reveal intelligence sources and methods."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/us/politics/john-bolton-book-hearing.html


He clearly did not complete the review process in spite of whatever Bolton says. If he did, he would have paperwork saying so. If you think these kind of high level operations work on a word, you are a fucking moron. This is a transparent attempt to leverage privileged information in an attempt to manipulate the upcoming election by a fired disgruntled war criminal. He is pissed that he didn't get what he wanted, and now he is exploiting his privileged information in an attempt to attack the administration in the hopes that it will prevent Trumps re-election. This is right out of the same playbook the dems have been using from day one of Trumps administration. None of you give a fuck about this country, you would turn it all to ashes, as long as you get to feel like you rule over the pile.

He's played the muhNDA card with Omorossa and Bannon.  Nothing came of it.  He's playing it with his niece right now also because of an NDA from 20 years ago.  He's just desperate to stop or discredit anyone that says mean things about him.  The books is all lies and also has classified information that is a threat to national security.  Think about that.

If Bolton included any information that the NSC director of prepublishing told him to remove, he deserves a stiff punishment.  If Trump is attempting to classify things only because he doesn't want the book published (like every single conversation between himself and Bolton), then he's attempting to violate Boltons constitutional rights.

[TECSHARE]

Not sure on a Biden administration dropping charges against Bolton, what the guy did is still illegal and they're going to want to set an example out of him either way. Especially due to the fact that he didn't whistle blow the proper way, he went out of his way to try to enrich himself with a book. Not a good look at all.

Democrats are most likely not going to impeach, too little time to the election and the voters really don't even care about this whole Bolton situation. Much more fixated on the response to the Coronavirus.

Would love to see China stop stealing IP from the US, but who knows if that'll ever happen -- under any adminstration.

Of course they will drop the charges, he is doing this clearly to benefit the entrenched establishment, and you can't get a any more of that than with Biden. THis is about serving them and attempting to hurt Trump, because they know if it was a fair fight they would lose every time.

He's played the muhNDA card with Omorossa and Bannon.  Nothing came of it.  He's playing it with his niece right now also because of an NDA from 20 years ago.  He's just desperate to stop or discredit anyone that says mean things about him.  The books is all lies and also has classified information that is a threat to national security.  Think about that.

If Bolton included any information that the NSC director of prepublishing told him to remove, he deserves a stiff punishment.  If Trump is attempting to classify things only because he doesn't want the book published (like every single conversation between himself and Bolton), then he's attempting to violate Boltons constitutional rights.

Again, I know you are desperate to conflate these two issues, but they are totally unrelated. The NDAs for getting classified clearance have been established policy for a very long time. I know you really enjoy using mental back flips and semantic gymnastics to try to appear to have an argument, but I don't see anyone saying it is "all lies". He can lie about the truth and tell the truth about lies and still have it contain classified information that is a threat to national security. Captain mustache is a war criminal and a disgruntled hawk who was dumped on his ass after he didn't get what he wanted, now he is trying to get even by further serving his establishment masters by trying to attack Trump.

That's why there is such a rush to publish this book, because it needs to get out before November to serve its intended goals. Bolton doesn't get to unilaterally decide to publish, and he knows this damned well. There was no confusion here, this is willful intent to cause harm on his part. Poor war criminal wants his constitutional rights even though he signed an agreement explicitly restricting them. It disgusts me how the left has no problem defending pieces of shit like this just as long as he is saying orange man bad. I remember when the left was actually anti-war. This man is one of the biggest war hawks still alive.

[TwitchySeal]

Poor war criminal wants his constitutional rights even though he signed an agreement explicitly restricting them. It disgusts me how the left has no problem defending pieces of shit like this just as long as he is saying orange man bad. I remember when the left was actually anti-war. This man is one of the biggest war hawks still alive.

Oh that's right. I forgot how upset you were when Trump decided to pick a war criminal to be his National Security Advisor.

jk.  I know you would never betray our dear leader by publicly criticizing him.

[TECSHARE]

Poor war criminal wants his constitutional rights even though he signed an agreement explicitly restricting them. It disgusts me how the left has no problem defending pieces of shit like this just as long as he is saying orange man bad. I remember when the left was actually anti-war. This man is one of the biggest war hawks still alive.

Oh that's right. I forgot how upset you were when Trump decided to pick a war criminal to be his National Security Advisor.

jk.  I know you would never betray our dear leader by publicly criticizing him.

How the fuck would you know what I think and feel? It did concern me, but after the fact I know now why he did that. It was to send a signal to North Korea and Iran. He kept the mad dog on a leash, and when he was done with him he sent him off to be euthanized. This is why The Mustache is so salty because he is a tool and he didn't get to murder more innocent people, because Trump wouldn't let him.

[TwitchySeal]

Poor war criminal wants his constitutional rights even though he signed an agreement explicitly restricting them. It disgusts me how the left has no problem defending pieces of shit like this just as long as he is saying orange man bad. I remember when the left was actually anti-war. This man is one of the biggest war hawks still alive.

Oh that's right. I forgot how upset you were when Trump decided to pick a war criminal to be his National Security Advisor.

jk.  I know you would never betray our dear leader by publicly criticizing him.

How the fuck would you know what I think and feel? It did concern me, but after the fact I know now why he did that. It was to send a signal to North Korea and Iran. He kept the mad dog on a leash, and when he was done with him he sent him off to be euthanized. This is why The Mustache is so salty because he is a tool and he didn't get to murder more innocent people, because Trump wouldn't let him.

From the chapter on the meeting in Vietnam with Kim Jong Un, Bolton trying to stop Trump from offering to ease sanctions in exchange for a joint statement saying that it was a successful summit instead of actually denuclearizing:



Right after they walk out of the meeting:

[TECSHARE]

From the chapter on the meeting in Vietnam with Kim Jong Un, Bolton trying to stop Trump from offering to ease sanctions in exchange for a joint statement saying that it was a successful summit instead of actually denuclearizing:
[img ]https://i.snipboard.io/iWJVtd.jpg[/img]


Right after they walk out of the meeting:
[img ]https://i.snipboard.io/ytOxsa.jpg[/img]

None of this is a response to what I said.

[TwitchySeal]

Can't make this stuff up really.

[PrimeNumber7]

[img ]https://i.snipboard.io/GMPlDI.jpg[/img]

Can't make this stuff up really.

How do you know this is not made up?

Prominent officials from both sides of the aisle have pointed out that Bolton's book is a cash grab. I shouldn't have to tell you that scandalous stories will sell more copies.

As it stands now, there is about as much evidence that Bolton's book is entirely accurate as there is evidence that the dossier on Trump created by Steele. I think most likely there is a lot of accurate information in both the dossier and Bolton's book, but also a lot of fabricated information, and it is difficult to determine what is true and what is made up.

It is like playing 'two truths and a lie', except you don't know the number of truths, nor lies.

[TwitchySeal]

[img ]https://i.snipboard.io/GMPlDI.jpg[/img]

Can't make this stuff up really.

How do you know this is not made up?

Prominent officials from both sides of the aisle have pointed out that Bolton's book is a cash grab. I shouldn't have to tell you that scandalous stories will sell more copies.

As it stands now, there is about as much evidence that Bolton's book is entirely accurate as there is evidence that the dossier on Trump created by Steele. I think most likely there is a lot of accurate information in both the dossier and Bolton's book, but also a lot of fabricated information, and it is difficult to determine what is true and what is made up.

It is like playing 'two truths and a lie', except you don't know the number of truths, nor lies.

Of course I don't know that it's not made up.  

I do know that Trump says and does crazy shit all the time and from April 2018 - September 2019 Bolton was Trumps assistant for all things National Security.  

I did some digging on his past (did you know allegedly he was a swinger in the 70s?) and I'm about 30% of the way through his book - I'm sure not every single detail is accurate, but imo it seems very unlikely he just fabricated any of these claims to make his memoir more exciting.  

I think he's a history nerd that has consumed tons of books and already written two of his own.  If Trump never hired him he'd probably still write #3 and it would probably still be about Trump. (#2 was about Obama).

It's not the same as Scaramucci or Omarosa or Trump or Trump Jr who have ghost writers or at least hand holding throughout the writing process to make them feel like they wrote the book they're getting paid a shitload for.

[Spendulus]

[img ]https://i.snipboard.io/GMPlDI.jpg[/img]

Can't make this stuff up really.

How do you know this is not made up?
....

For starters, you don't even know where the snip came from.

Why is that?

Twitch has not provided a link. Don't know about you but I never accept a quote as accurate, complete, or even "not fake" unless verification of source and context is provided.

[PrimeNumber7]

[img ]https://i.snipboard.io/GMPlDI.jpg[/img]

Can't make this stuff up really.

How do you know this is not made up?
....

For starters, you don't even know where the snip came from.

Why is that?

Twitch has not provided a link. Don't know about you but I never accept a quote as accurate, complete, or even "not fake" unless verification of source and context is provided.

I am pretty sure it is from Bolton's book.

<>

I have said before, and I would say that I still believe there is a hidden political objective with regards to Bolton.

It could be a trap to get Democrats to impeach based on flimsy evidence (again) for Bolton is recant. Or it could be an effort to get Trump to drop out of the race.

[Spendulus]

......
I think he's a history nerd that has consumed tons of books and already written two of his own.  If Trump never hired him he'd probably still write #3 and it would probably still be about Trump. (#2 was about Obama).

It's not the same as Scaramucci or Omarosa or Trump or Trump Jr who have ghost writers or at least hand holding throughout the writing process to make them feel like they wrote the book they're getting paid a shitload for.

It reads to me 100% ike a typical ghostwritten book, style of writing could be National Enquirer.

[TwitchySeal]

......
I think he's a history nerd that has consumed tons of books and already written two of his own.  If Trump never hired him he'd probably still write #3 and it would probably still be about Trump. (#2 was about Obama).

It's not the same as Scaramucci or Omarosa or Trump or Trump Jr who have ghost writers or at least hand holding throughout the writing process to make them feel like they wrote the book they're getting paid a shitload for.

It reads to me 100% ike a typical ghostwritten book, style of writing could be National Enquirer.

Makes sense considering tabloids are your go to when it comes to science (or anything at all really).

[Spendulus]

......
I think he's a history nerd that has consumed tons of books and already written two of his own.  If Trump never hired him he'd probably still write #3 and it would probably still be about Trump. (#2 was about Obama).

It's not the same as Scaramucci or Omarosa or Trump or Trump Jr who have ghost writers or at least hand holding throughout the writing process to make them feel like they wrote the book they're getting paid a shitload for.

It reads to me 100% ike a typical ghostwritten book, style of writing could be National Enquirer.

Makes sense considering tabloids are your go to when it comes to science (or anything at all really).

The thread in which I said this, before spoon-feeding you something at your level?

Note that I deleted my post shortly after you scraped it. The reasons have to do with details of the subject and the writers and criticizers, and my personal knowledge of it. No problem, it is only one of many. Discussion of that article and its issues may or may not be relevant to the subject. but relevance cannot be proven.

[squatz1]

[img ]https://i.snipboard.io/GMPlDI.jpg[/img]

Can't make this stuff up really.

How do you know this is not made up?

Prominent officials from both sides of the aisle have pointed out that Bolton's book is a cash grab. I shouldn't have to tell you that scandalous stories will sell more copies.

As it stands now, there is about as much evidence that Bolton's book is entirely accurate as there is evidence that the dossier on Trump created by Steele. I think most likely there is a lot of accurate information in both the dossier and Bolton's book, but also a lot of fabricated information, and it is difficult to determine what is true and what is made up.

It is like playing 'two truths and a lie', except you don't know the number of truths, nor lies.

Of course I don't know that it's not made up.  

I do know that Trump says and does crazy shit all the time and from April 2018 - September 2019 Bolton was Trumps assistant for all things National Security.  

I did some digging on his past (did you know allegedly he was a swinger in the 70s?) and I'm about 30% of the way through his book - I'm sure not every single detail is accurate, but imo it seems very unlikely he just fabricated any of these claims to make his memoir more exciting.  

I think he's a history nerd that has consumed tons of books and already written two of his own.  If Trump never hired him he'd probably still write #3 and it would probably still be about Trump. (#2 was about Obama).

It's not the same as Scaramucci or Omarosa or Trump or Trump Jr who have ghost writers or at least hand holding throughout the writing process to make them feel like they wrote the book they're getting paid a shitload for.

While the book may have some truth to it, I really think the fact that he didn't go in front of congress and answer their questions shows that all he wanted to do is profit from his book. While we all know that everyone (most people) write books with a profit incentive as the motive, it really does take away from the legitimacy of the claim.

If this story was different and he went in front of Congress and said all of these things and then wrote a book, then we'd be having a different conversation right now. But this really isn't a good look for Bolton.

Going to take some time to see if his claims are actually true.

[TECSHARE]

While the book may have some truth to it, I really think the fact that he didn't go in front of congress and answer their questions shows that all he wanted to do is profit from his book. While we all know that everyone (most people) write books with a profit incentive as the motive, it really does take away from the legitimacy of the claim.

If this story was different and he went in front of Congress and said all of these things and then wrote a book, then we'd be having a different conversation right now. But this really isn't a good look for Bolton.

Going to take some time to see if his claims are actually true.

Actually it shows he is full of shit. Lying to congress under oath is a crime. Lying in a book is not. He didn't say it in front of congress because he could legally be held responsible. If he just says it in a book he gets to attack Trump and manipulate the election with bullshit without facing possible criminal charges. It is really simple.

[squatz1]

While the book may have some truth to it, I really think the fact that he didn't go in front of congress and answer their questions shows that all he wanted to do is profit from his book. While we all know that everyone (most people) write books with a profit incentive as the motive, it really does take away from the legitimacy of the claim.

If this story was different and he went in front of Congress and said all of these things and then wrote a book, then we'd be having a different conversation right now. But this really isn't a good look for Bolton.

Going to take some time to see if his claims are actually true.

Actually it shows he is full of shit. Lying to congress under oath is a crime. Lying in a book is not. He didn't say it in front of congress because he could legally be held responsible. If he just says it in a book he gets to attack Trump and manipulate the election with bullshit without facing possible criminal charges. It is really simple.

Pretty interesting take, and this is probably close to the truth. Never thought of it this way, totally good take TecShare.

In front of Congress if he was to lie or stretch the truth there would've been legal action threatened, though I doubt that Congress would've done anything on this front, they typically dont.

Right now he's still able to salavage a career with other Republicans who are moderate and anti Trump. Guy is just going to end up going into consulting like everyone else does, and he'll be able to live on with his 3m book advance -- if he can keep it that is.

[TwitchySeal]

While the book may have some truth to it, I really think the fact that he didn't go in front of congress and answer their questions shows that all he wanted to do is profit from his book. While we all know that everyone (most people) write books with a profit incentive as the motive, it really does take away from the legitimacy of the claim.

If this story was different and he went in front of Congress and said all of these things and then wrote a book, then we'd be having a different conversation right now. But this really isn't a good look for Bolton.

Going to take some time to see if his claims are actually true.

Actually it shows he is full of shit. Lying to congress under oath is a crime. Lying in a book is not. He didn't say it in front of congress because he could legally be held responsible. If he just says it in a book he gets to attack Trump and manipulate the election with bullshit without facing possible criminal charges. It is really simple.

He said he would appear for the Senate trial if subpoenaed.

For the House he explained that he wanted a judge to rule on it to provide him legal cover and was surprised when the democrats just dropped it and moved without him.

He thinks the democrats royally fucked up by rushing the hearings for political reasons (the Feb primaries) and having such a narrow focus and there should've been several other charges and also testimony about non-impeachable things he did as evidence of his mindset as a leader.  Basically any time he met a dictator he tried to cut a deal not because it was in the best interest of the country, but to increase his chances of getting reelected. He did favors for China and Russia like ending criminal prosecutions and going easy on sanctions because he wanted them to want him to win in November.

If you're a big Trump fan, and you want to remain one in good conscious - your only option is to assume that Bolton made all of this up.

[squatz1]

snip

He said he would appear for the Senate trial if subpoenaed.

For the House he explained that he wanted a judge to rule on it to provide him legal cover and was surprised when the democrats just dropped it and moved without him.

He thinks the democrats royally fucked up by rushing the hearings for political reasons (the Feb primaries) and having such a narrow focus and there should've been several other charges and also testimony about non-impeachable things he did as evidence of his mindset as a leader.  Basically any time he met a dictator he tried to cut a deal not because it was in the best interest of the country, but to increase his chances of getting reelected. He did favors for China and Russia like ending criminal prosecutions and going easy on sanctions because he wanted them to want him to win in November.

If you're a big Trump fan, and you want to remain one in good conscious - your only option is to assume that Bolton made all of this up.






[/quote]

Horrible move by the democrats to not give him the legal cover that he wanted. Doesn't make sense to move on without the guy who is probably holding the treasure trove of secrets in his head.

That pretty much leaves us with two options in regards to this book.

1. It's made up and that's the reason that Bolton didn't want to step in front of Congress and speak about it. He's a smart guy so he made up the portion about legal cover and it all worked out for him. Bolton had a profit incentive with making this book, and disregarded the truth when making it.

2. The book is truthful (or mostly truthful) and Bolton really felt that he didn't have the legal cover required to sit in front of congress and speak. He felt like the DOJ was going to go after him big time if he went in front of Congress (not sure on the precedent here, but I wouldn't be surprised)

Tough times, and only congressional oversight is going to get to the bottom of all of this.