BREAKING: Bolton to Claim Trump Held Up Ukraine Military Aid Over Biden Investigations

...wait? Seriously? How can you rationally make this claim?

 

So he said she said? And you have to figure anyone selling a book to make money when facts don’t have to be verified, can’t be taken overly serious anymore. He wants to sell the book. And we already know no one is going to buy a book saying nice things about Trump. It’s already a guaranteed seller claiming you’ve got juicy gossip you thought Trump said.

 

Ah... found it... Patrick Philbin

SNIP
Democrats have also noted during their floor arguments that despite a string of combative letters and defiant rhetoric from Trump, he never actually asserted executive privilege in response to the House subpoenas.

At the Senate trial, the president’s lawyer Patrick Philbin called the claim “technically true but misleading,” because the White House had other legal grounds — backed up by the Justice Department — for instructing witnesses not to comply.
ENDSNIP

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/27/how-fight-executive-privilege-could-play-out-105625

Can we finally stop with the Executive Privilege??

 

I choose to believe those willing to testify under oath, especially if it is likely that they made contemporaneous notes (something Bolton is notorious for doing).

 

Has the book been released to the public yet? If not there will likely be some NSA leakers getting a jail stretch.

 

And since it’s a conversation between two people, without a recording anyone can lie because there’s no proof anyone said anything. He said she said. No proof of crime. Can’t impeach over what someone claimed someone said or we’ll be able to impeach every president from this day forward. Is that what you want moving forward. Every president being impeached assuming the opposing party has the votes. Kiss our govt good bye.

 

Get over it, happens all the time.

 

Since Bolton had access to classified conversations and documents, the book has to be reviewed by the NSA before being released publically. Those leakers will likely suffer the wrath of the AG anytime soon.

 

So we’re not blaming the publisher or author? More leaks from the trump admin? Lol

 

The NY Times is not claiming that a direct statement was made by Trump to Bolton.

It is, yet again, another, "sources are claiming," by the NY Times doesn't claim that a direct statement was made.

A timely ploy that is intended to be a timely ploy. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

Before or after Hillarys arrest? lol

 

No publisher will print such a book unless the text has been approved, I doubt they even get a copy.

 

The DNC, hmmm this sounds like he wanted to know why the DNC met with Ukraine during the election. Two things that's we've heard is the Server being in Ukraine and number two that the DNC was trying to get dirt on a political foe from a foreign government. Kind of like saying Trump worked with Russia. Why not investigate the DNC, didn't have a problem Trump getting investigated why not the DNC?

 

Actually there is...it's in Paragraph 683 "Recession of budget authority." It says the special message will be sent to Congress BEFORE the withholding...in the phrase "or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided...". And, in Paragraph 682, "Definitions," where it says "(1) deferral of budget authority includes - (A) withholding OR DELAYING the obligation or expenditure of budget authority (whether by establishing reserves or otherwise) provided for projects or activities; or (B) ANY OTHER TYPE OF EXECUTIVE ACTION OR INACTION which effectively precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority, including the authority to obligate by contract in advance of appropriations as specifically authorized by law."
Plus the GAO opinion: "Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding g was not a programmatic delay. Therefore we conclude that OMB violated the ICA."

 

So let’s assume that statement is true. What’s wrong with the it?

 

We ask juries to evaluate the credibility of witnesses every single day. And that occurs when there are people testifying under oath on both sides of the "he said/she said." And I have zero reason to believe that Trump will ever testify under oath.

If you want to believe that John Bolton is lying after he testifies under oath, then you are free to do so. But to use that potential outcome as a justification for not allowing him to testify is nonsense.

 

To: "The Great Satan" - Yes...that was the "original intent."

 

So, you have no fricking proof that what the lying warmonger Bolton says is the truth? Good to know.

Psssssst! If what Bolton claims is true, then why didn't he tell anybody this before writing about it in a lucrative book deal????? And how come none of the witnesses that testified under oath during the impeachment inquiry in the House mentioned having a conversation with Bolton over this matter????

 

Clinton lied under oath.
Manaford lied under oath.
Plenty of people lie under oath. It's only a problem when you get caught doing it.

 

What was rational about it?

 

A) You have changed your claim from "The NY Times has admitted that Bolton never heard" to "The NY Times is not claiming that a direct statement was made by Trump"
B) You are still not quoting the NY Times or any other source. Here is the line, again, from the The Hill:

 

So did Brennan, Clapper, McCabe and probably Comey.

 

So who sent it to the NSA?

 

I know that is your singular goal from the Impeachment of Donald Trump is to punish anyone that is not named Donald Trump. Good luck.

 

Many of the same media declared that Jussie was attacked by two white dude too...