It appears Bolton's book undercuts Trump's defense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:House investigators did ask Bolton to testify during the impeachment inquiry last fall, but he declined to testify on instructions from the White House and said he would only testify pursuant to a subpoena if a court weighed in on the issue. The House never subpoenaed Bolton.

You are all complete liars. Democrats didn’t subpoena Bolton. You trade off lies and half truths with each other here and pretend you are all so intelligent.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/480040-trump-falsely-claims-house-democrats-never-asked-bolton-to-testify%3famp

ONE PP said "I think they did?" w/r/t subpoena-ing Bolton. Multiple other PPs here have said they requested his testimony but he declined -- ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE WH -- and they did not proceed with a subpoena.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

This is very well known and I assume that you know it and are just playing stupid. But, here is the explanation:

1) Charles Kupperman, and NSC aid to Bolton, was subpoenaed. The White House ordered him not to testify. He then went to court and said that since he was getting conflicting demands from two branches of government, the Courts should decide which he should honor.

2) Bolton, assuming that he might get subpoenaed, asked to join the case.

3) The Congress decided that it didn't want to engage in a long drawn-out court case and told the court that Bolton would not be subpoenaed. Bolton was then dropped from the case.

4) Congress withdrew its subpoena of Kupperman and his case was dropped.

In sum, Congress would have liked both Kupperman and Bolton to testify. The White House obstructed that testimony. Congress decided not to fight this in Court due to time constraints.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

This is very well known and I assume that you know it and are just playing stupid. But, here is the explanation:

1) Charles Kupperman, and NSC aid to Bolton, was subpoenaed. The White House ordered him not to testify. He then went to court and said that since he was getting conflicting demands from two branches of government, the Courts should decide which he should honor.

2) Bolton, assuming that he might get subpoenaed, asked to join the case.

3) The Congress decided that it didn't want to engage in a long drawn-out court case and told the court that Bolton would not be subpoenaed. Bolton was then dropped from the case.

4) Congress withdrew its subpoena of Kupperman and his case was dropped.

In sum, Congress would have liked both Kupperman and Bolton to testify. The White House obstructed that testimony. Congress decided not to fight this in Court due to time constraints.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Ah yes. Ignore the entire WH obstruction part of the story and focus on the lack of subpoena.

Care to comment on Lindsay Graham's, Mitt Romney's, and Susan Collins' take on Bolton today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

This is very well known and I assume that you know it and are just playing stupid. But, here is the explanation:

1) Charles Kupperman, and NSC aid to Bolton, was subpoenaed. The White House ordered him not to testify. He then went to court and said that since he was getting conflicting demands from two branches of government, the Courts should decide which he should honor.

2) Bolton, assuming that he might get subpoenaed, asked to join the case.

3) The Congress decided that it didn't want to engage in a long drawn-out court case and told the court that Bolton would not be subpoenaed. Bolton was then dropped from the case.

4) Congress withdrew its subpoena of Kupperman and his case was dropped.

In sum, Congress would have liked both Kupperman and Bolton to testify. The White House obstructed that testimony. Congress decided not to fight this in Court due to time constraints.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Are you always this dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT?!

The House requested Bolton testify.

Bolton said he wouldn't testify without a court ruling saying he can comply with a subpoena. That came when the House was done with its hearings.

As such, it's up to the Senate to issue said subpoena.

No one is saying he's a truth-telling, respected man. He has potential relevance to the case, which is why Democrats--and even now GOP Senators (Romney, Collins, even Graham)--are saying he should testify.

All the democrats had to do was issue a subpoena. They did not.

So?

The House did not need to subpoena Bolton to complete their process. The Senate does.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

This is very well known and I assume that you know it and are just playing stupid. But, here is the explanation:

1) Charles Kupperman, and NSC aid to Bolton, was subpoenaed. The White House ordered him not to testify. He then went to court and said that since he was getting conflicting demands from two branches of government, the Courts should decide which he should honor.

2) Bolton, assuming that he might get subpoenaed, asked to join the case.

3) The Congress decided that it didn't want to engage in a long drawn-out court case and told the court that Bolton would not be subpoenaed. Bolton was then dropped from the case.

4) Congress withdrew its subpoena of Kupperman and his case was dropped.

In sum, Congress would have liked both Kupperman and Bolton to testify. The White House obstructed that testimony. Congress decided not to fight this in Court due to time constraints.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Yes. That and a quarter will get you a telephone call. Happy now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Was he honest and truthful never? If so why did Trump hire him into such an important position?

You hear his evidence. You evaluate its credibility. Obviously.

[Anonymous]

By the way, for the people (person?) suggesting the Senate shouldn't subpoena Bolton because the house should've gone through the courts -- are you aware of what the Administration's argument has been in these cases (e.g., Don McGahn's)? DOJ has argued that an issue between Congress and the Executive is NOT FOR THE COURTS. But now you and they are saying this should've gone through the courts??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god you people are dumb.

ALL that matters is what he knows. We need documentary evidence to back up his verbal claims.

Do you not understand that someone you can otherwise revile can still be relevant to a trial?

Ever heard of mobsters turning state's witness? You think everyone involved in those cases suddenly LOVED those guys? No. They just knew things, so the prosecution mined their knowledge and got evidence from them.

So Bolton was honest and truthful always?

Huh?! No. Of course not.

That's why you request DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE to back up his claims. You look to see whether his claims and the surrounding evidence corroborate testimony from other witnesses. It's called BUILDING A CASE.

Have you NEVER had to put an argument together?

Bolton was excruciating process oriented. And documented everything. It may not be enough to sway GOP now (hard to see evidence when your head is in the sand) but it will all come out eventually.

Mitch’s plan to ignore and hope it will go down memory hole was pre-Twitter. Everything is forever.

[Anonymous]

“A source with direct knowledge of the manuscript told CNN the New York Times' telling of Bolton's account of the Ukraine aid hold discussion with Trump is accurate.“

Gasp. But then:

“Bolton spokeswoman Sarah Tinsley said the draft of the book "was transmitted to the White House for pre-publication review by the National Security Council."
As for the claim in the New York Times that Bolton has circulated a draft manuscript to his close aides, Tinsley said, "The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone. Period." Tinsley declined to comment on the contents of the book manuscript.“

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/26/politics/bolton-book-ukraine-aid-trump/index.html

Democrats might want to hold off on giving Bolton the Medal of Honor for just a few more seconds, if possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT?!

The House requested Bolton testify.

Bolton said he wouldn't testify without a court ruling saying he can comply with a subpoena. That came when the House was done with its hearings.

As such, it's up to the Senate to issue said subpoena.

No one is saying he's a truth-telling, respected man. He has potential relevance to the case, which is why Democrats--and even now GOP Senators (Romney, Collins, even Graham)--are saying he should testify.

All the democrats had to do was issue a subpoena. They did not.

So?

The House did not need to subpoena Bolton to complete their process. The Senate does.

DP. If this bombshell information from his manuscript is "not new" as many GOP Senators are now stating, and you suggest the House should have subpoenaed Bolton anyway despite the above that Jeff outlined, why didn't the House Republicans support/demand a Bolton subpoena?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

They asked him to testify. He wouldn’t do it without a subpoena, Democrats didn’t go that route because it would have taken months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one will answer why Democrats did not subpoena Bolton.

Or why now he’s a patriot truth telling respected man.

This is very well known and I assume that you know it and are just playing stupid. But, here is the explanation:

1) Charles Kupperman, and NSC aid to Bolton, was subpoenaed. The White House ordered him not to testify. He then went to court and said that since he was getting conflicting demands from two branches of government, the Courts should decide which he should honor.

2) Bolton, assuming that he might get subpoenaed, asked to join the case.

3) The Congress decided that it didn't want to engage in a long drawn-out court case and told the court that Bolton would not be subpoenaed. Bolton was then dropped from the case.

4) Congress withdrew its subpoena of Kupperman and his case was dropped.

In sum, Congress would have liked both Kupperman and Bolton to testify. The White House obstructed that testimony. Congress decided not to fight this in Court due to time constraints.

Which means democrats did not issue a subpoena. Yawn.

Are you always this dumb?

Scribbling I Heart JB on your calendar isn’t the best look.

[Anonymous]

So easy to get blindsided when you’ve been wearing blindfolds for months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“A source with direct knowledge of the manuscript told CNN the New York Times' telling of Bolton's account of the Ukraine aid hold discussion with Trump is accurate.“

Gasp. But then:

“Bolton spokeswoman Sarah Tinsley said the draft of the book "was transmitted to the White House for pre-publication review by the National Security Council."
As for the claim in the New York Times that Bolton has circulated a draft manuscript to his close aides, Tinsley said, "The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone. Period." Tinsley declined to comment on the contents of the book manuscript.“

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/26/politics/bolton-book-ukraine-aid-trump/index.html

Democrats might want to hold off on giving Bolton the Medal of Honor for just a few more seconds, if possible.

This sounds like wordplay between what defines "pre-publication review" by the WH and "passing the draft around." Those two phrases are effectively the same for our purposes/the Senate's purposes in calling him as a witness. The point is some people in the WH may have had knowledge of what was in the manuscript. If so we do not know who had that knowledge, but we do need to know as it gets to the obstruction element of the case.