Topic: John Bolton fired by President Trump - BREAKING - page 2. (Read 985 times)

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.

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. 

"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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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 $$$

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.   

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.

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.  

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

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

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

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.

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