John Bolton: Trump Tied Aid To Biden Investigation

[Chevy1]

John Bolton Reportedly Recalls Trump Tying Ukraine Aid To Biden Investigation
https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-bolton-trump-ukraine-biden-002212014.html
Former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly wrote in an outline for a book that President Donald Trump tied the withheld Ukraine aid to the country’s announcement that it would investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Drafts of the book outline obtained by The New York Times describe Trump telling Bolton in August that he wanted to continue freezing nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military assistance to Ukraine until officials there agreed to help investigate his political rival.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Yet another "reportedly said", "reportedly did", "reportedly wrote", "reportedly asked"...that will be another nothing burger in a couple of weeks. Yet another opportunity for the news to pump more nonsense this week.

The funniest part of this "scoop" admits?? "Bolton book draft, circulated to associates and sent to WH for review process." What's that tell you? You guys being duped by another desperate headline again.

 

[Chevy1]

It appears legit. According to this Fox News account, Bolton says it was leaked by the NSC - a copy was sent to them for review...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-bolton-trump-ukraine-aid-ny-times-manuscript

In a statement obtained by Fox News, Bolton attorney Charles Cooper lamened that the review process had been "corrupted."

"On December 30, 2019, I submitted, on behalf of Ambassador Bolton, a book manuscript to the National Security Council’s Records Management Division for standard publication security review......."

Additionally, Bolton's representatives made clear he was not denying the Times' claim concerning the Ukraine aid holdup and the possible investigation of the Bidens.

 

[riflearm2]

Yet another "reportedly said", "reportedly did", "reportedly wrote", "reportedly asked"...that will be another nothing burger in a couple of weeks. Yet another opportunity for the news to pump more nonsense this week.

The funniest part of this "scoop" admits?? "Bolton book draft, circulated to associates and sent to WH for review process." What's that tell you? You guys being duped by another desperate headline again.

So if this gets verified as true, which it appears it is on the path of doing, you're just going to claim it's vengeance by somebody who was fired and/or didn't get along with cheeto, right?

I just want to make sure we have your excuse down once you're proven wrong, again.

 

[i am herdman]

OJ is looking for the real killers as well.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Additionally, Bolton's representatives made clear he was not denying the Times' claim concerning the Ukraine aid holdup and the possible investigation of the Bidens.

Which representative said this? Where was it specifically said?

 

[raleighherdfan]

I just want to make sure we have your excuse down once you're proven wrong, again

Wrong again? bahahahahahaha

 

[Chevy1]

Which representative said this? Where was it specifically said?

I quoted that from the attached link....it's toward the bottom of the article

 

[Chevy1]

Here's another copy of the link
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-bolton-trump-ukraine-aid-ny-times-manuscript

 

[riflearm2]

Which representative said this? Where was it specifically said?

Are you saying Fox News is reporting false information to hurt cheeto? That would be quite a change from their historical stance.

Chevy's quote that you questioned was copied verbatim from the Fox article. If this is accurate, which it appears very likely it is based on the Fox article, it solidifies the Democrats' case even more. Of course, it doesn't mean Bolton will even be able to testify due to the deplorables not allowing it.

But again, answer the question, coward. If this is confirmed as accurate, is your defense going to be that Bolton is also lying (along with everyone else including cheeto) just because he resigned and didn't get along with cheeto?

 

[raleighherdfan]

I quoted that from the attached link....it's toward the bottom of the article

Which specific representative of Bolton's made the claim? Where specifically can I read this unnamed "representative's" actual quote making the assertion?

 

[riflearm2]

Wrong again? bahahahahahaha

Yes, wrong again. There is a reason you're known as liarherdfan around these parts. Shall we relive that thread where you were caught in a huge lie?

Now, answer the question, coward.

 

[Chevy1]

Right or wrong....going to interesting at tomorrow's Senate trial.

 

[riflearm2]

Which specific representative of Bolton's made the claim? Where specifically can I read this unnamed "representative's" actual quote making the assertion?

So your defense is that Fox News - Fox fvcking News - is reporting false information to make cheeto look bad?

God damn, you are as dishonest and as much of a sheep as everyone else is, liarherdfan.

ITT!

 

[muthed]

As with all previous attempts to get Trump, all allegations are prefaced with "If this is confirmed as accurate." No facts, no truth, just made up lies and rumors.

 

[extragreen]

As with all previous attempts to get Trump, all allegations are prefaced with "If this is confirmed as accurate." No facts, no truth, just made up lies and rumors.

You're delusional.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Are you saying Fox News is reporting false information to hurt cheeto? That would be quite a change from their historical stance.

Chevy's quote that you questioned was copied verbatim from the Fox article. If this is accurate, which it appears very likely it is based on the Fox article, it solidifies the Democrats' case even more. Of course, it doesn't mean Bolton will even be able to testify due to the deplorables not allowing it.

But again, answer the question, coward. If this is confirmed as accurate, is your defense going to be that Bolton is also lying (along with everyone else including cheeto) just because he resigned and didn't get along with cheeto?

Yes, wrong again. There is a reason you're known as liarherdfan around these parts. Shall we relive that thread where you were caught in a huge lie?

Now, answer the question, coward.

So your defense is that Fox News - Fox fvcking News - is reporting false information to make cheeto look bad?

God damn, you are as dishonest and as much of a sheep as everyone else is, liarherdfan.

ITT!

The only thing missing from these rants is your latest man crush on Tucker. You're apparently watching fox more than the rest of us. I would simply like to know who the specific representative was that made claims about the book and in what complete context the claim(s) were made.

It's funny watching you idiots jump at the first headline repeatedly only to find out a couple days later comments/reports are clarified or changed...only to then read "sheep" such as yourself cry about "coverups", "intimidation", or "obstruction" that didn't exist. You're simply at your best when discussing ferrets.

As for your question. I actually would like to see Bolton testify. Something tells me, it would end up the same as "Mueller Knows", Ukraine phone call transcripts and illegal FISA warrants during an election. You Dems haven't gotten anything right yet. As for a "what if" question...what do you think your crying would sound like if Bolton testifies to never having had the conversation with Trump these hearsay news stories claimed happened?

 

[extragreen]

what do you think your crying would sound like if Bolton testifies to never having had the conversation with Trump these hearsay news stories claimed happened?

I happen to urge the liar in chief to present all evidence that might exonerate him.

 

[raleighherdfan]

I happen to urge the liar in chief to present all evidence that might exonerate him.

I happened to urge the prosecution to actually present evidence proving guilt. How does one "exonerate" themselves when nothing has been demonstrated to be illegal?

 

[extragreen]

I happened to urge the prosecution to actually present evidence proving guilt. How does one "exonerate" themselves when nothing has been demonstrated to be illegal?

It doesn't have to be illegal. Abuse of power and obstruction are more than what is needed. Those have been proven to sane people.

 

[i am herdman]

It doesn't have to be illegal. Abuse of power and obstruction are more than what is needed. Those have been proven to sane people.

Right, heard today there are 3-5 Democrats in the Senate who may vote on the side of Trump.

 

[raleighherdfan]

It doesn't have to be illegal. Abuse of power and obstruction are more than what is needed. Those have been proven to sane people.

You must have been watching cartoons yesterday. Both "abuse of power" and "obstruction" claims were absolutely destroyed by Trump's attorneys.
(another reason you guys are jumping on this latest headline)

 

[extragreen]

Right, heard today there are 3-5 Democrats in the Senate who may vote on the side of Trump.

Then those 3-5 are insane also. I suspect one of those is Manchin. He'd fit right in with the cowardly republican senators. I also suspect that if subpoenaed witnesses testify, you might just find yourself gnashing your teeth in fear of enough republicans switching sides to toss the liar in chief to the curb.

 

[extragreen]

You must have been watching cartoons yesterday. Both "abuse of power" and "obstruction" claims were absolutely destroyed by Trump's attorneys.
(another reason you guys are jumping on this latest headline)

No, those charges were not destroyed. We're "jumping" on the latest headline because it would be difficult for several republican senators to vote no to new witnesses, you know, the ones the liar in chief has directed to not turn over documents or testify.

 

[raleighherdfan]

No, those charges were not destroyed

You didn't watch it did you?

 

[extragreen]

You didn't watch it did you?

You didn't understand it, did you?

 

[Chevy1]

There seems to be lots of evidence... appears to be rolling it out in pretty logical fashion in relation to the Senate trial.

First was the Parnas interview before the trial began. Now, this ....the evening before the President's lawyers present their defense.

Wonder what else will "pop up".

 

[raleighherdfan]

You didn't understand it, did you?

Sure I did. They explained perfectly why WH used the legal precedent in not providing information to Schitt's subpoenas (no obstruction). They also demonstrated why much of what Schitt's claims are not based on facts, by using videos of his own contradicting statements to media.

(yes....this is exactly why this article was needed today. The Dems were getting bombed again.)

 

[extragreen]

They explained perfectly why WH used the legal precedent in not providing information to Schitt's subpoenas

Name a precedent when a president does not turn over a single subpoenaed document or witness....

 

[banker6796]

Gotta sell those books.

 

[raleighherdfan]

There seems to be lots of evidence... appears to be rolling it out in pretty logical fashion in relation to the Senate trial.

It's "logical fashion" to roll out "evidence" AFTER the prosecutors have presented their case in the Senate???? bahahahaha

"Pop up" indeed. It's why I actually question the legitimacy of this newest headline. Thanks Chevy for actually helping make the case that this is another pure propaganda moment.

 

[extragreen]

Gotta block those witnesses and documents.

 

[extragreen]

make the case that this is another pure propaganda moment.

There's no evidence of propaganda moment. If it's shown that Bolton's statement isn't "there" or that he purposely leaked false information about the liar in chief, wouldn't his sales be negatively affected?

 

[Chevy1]

It's "logical fashion" to roll out "evidence" AFTER the prosecutors have presented their case in the Senate???? bahahahaha

"Pop up" indeed. It's why I actually question the legitimacy of this newest headline. Thanks Chevy for actually helping make the case that this is another pure propaganda moment.

Not sure propoganda's the right word. But these announcements are appearing in a logical fashion. I don't believe it's coincidence.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Name a precedent when a president does not turn over a single subpoenaed document or witness....

See. You didn't watch it.

Would you turn over documents for an "impeachment" investigation when the impeachment process had never been authorized/voted on by the HOR?

How or why would a president cooperate with a committee that was not given the legal approval to conduct such an investigation (for purposes of impeachment) by the HOR?? There simply is no obstruction in this situation.

 

[raleighherdfan]

There's no evidence of propaganda moment. If it's shown that Bolton's statement isn't "there" or that he purposely leaked false information about the liar in chief, wouldn't his sales be negatively affected?

Now you're spinning in your own propaganda. Who said he leaked it? Who is claiming he leaked it? (Not him) You libs are making the claim it's there. You libs are making the claim he said it. (Here is that hearsay thing again, you idiots keep stepping in) Because you want it to be there so bad you cant stand it.

 

[extragreen]

Would you turn over documents for an "impeachment" investigation when the impeachment process had never been authorized/voted on by the HOR?

You and republicans don't get to determine how the House goes about impeachment. Just like the dems and House don't get to tell the Senate how to conduct the trial. Furthermore, House committees have the power to issue subpoenas, and only the enforcement of subpoenas has to have full House approval.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Not sure propoganda's the right word. But these announcements are appearing in a logical fashion. I don't believe it's coincidence.

I don't believe it's coincidence either. The only "logic" here is Schiff and the boys stunk it up badly last week. Something has to be put in the news to keep you guys riled up (for the next let down).

 

[extragreen]

Now you're spinning in your own propaganda. Who said he leaked it? Who is claiming he leaked it? (Not him) You libs are making the claim it's there. You libs are making the claim he said it. (Here is that hearsay thing again, you idiots keep stepping in) Because you want it to be there so bad you cant stand it.

There was an "if" in front of my QUESTION and none of what I said was claimed to be factual. You're simply spinning.

 

[extragreen]

I don't believe it's coincidence either. The only "logic" here is Schiff and the boys stunk it up badly last week. Something has to be put in the news to keep you guys riled up (for the next let down).

That ^^^^is your propaganda you're taking about.