Anyone Watching The Q & A In The Senate? [Archive] - Debate Policy

NightTrain

01-29-2020, 01:55 PM

I am.

Lots of softballs back and forth... each side trying to reinforce points.

I think more witnesses will be voted down. If not, this is going to slog along for months.

Friday acquittal? I sure hope so.

Our 3 weak Senators are the wild cards here, and I'm sure reelection is in mind for Collins at least.

Liberals are going to howl about "cover up!!!" no matter which way the witnesses vote goes, it's just a waste of time. Dragging this out has no upside for any GOP Senator except Collins.

The benefit to the DNC is Biden's competition are tied up instead of campaigning. This has to be at least part of the underlying calculus and also explains why Pelosi delayed for over a month.

High_Plains_Drifter

01-29-2020, 02:32 PM

I'm skipping it. I think by what the president's lawyers presented, the only thing the senate should do is move to acquit, and if they don't, then we're going to see just a continuation of the ScHITt, Schummer Sham Show.

It's a farce.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 03:10 PM

Same here, trying to watch as much as possible. I wouldn't cooperate with the democrats in the slightest bit. I would only answer to Roberts and no one else. They had their many chances to do what they wanted with this case while in the house. It was a complete embarrassment into how they handled the whole thing. And who knows even more, as they bolted the whole thing down and wouldn't even let republicans in there to watch. They are already supposed to have a case. They want to continue building at this point and then try and continue finding and calling in witnesses if they think it may now help their case, or to extend things as long as possible. They also had a chance to work on Bolton or subpoena him back then and they chose not to.

And yup, like NT said, it truly doesn't matter what the republicans do anyway. No matter what takes place in this trial, and no matter anything at all in relation to witnesses - and even if the democrats get their way across the board, they will still surely cry cover-up and other BS. Probably try to impeach Roberts next. :rolleyes:

Kathianne

01-29-2020, 03:18 PM

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 03:39 PM

I think that both Rick and Jim are correct about what is going on. The House impeachment inquiry was a total joke, which has been emphasized throughout the Senate trial.

One thing though that strikes me, while I doubt that if he HAD acted better the outcome would have been different in the House, it does seem that the points that are being made, have much to do with the President's choices on how to deal with subordinates, especially when they were on their way out or even out altogether. I doubt he'd have the Bolton problem had he chosen to be more gracious and less humiliating.

I guess I'd rather see a Bolton unbent; then the obsequious Sessions that has been evident the past few months. Do I think Bolton is right? No, I don't. However I do think it was inevitable. President Trump isn't the only player that plays to win.

None of this matters though, well except for the blowing up of our system, he will be acquitted by the Senate whether there be witnesses or not.

I can't say what Bolton knows for sure or doesn't. I do know quite a bit disagree with him and other places where the facts simply don't line up. But again, I wasn't there and don't know anything for sure regarding Bolton.

Most who know me here also know how I feel about the opinions coming from folks who are also looking to profit from a book on the very subject. It's the facts that matter most to me. Regardless of a book or profiting, evidence itself is what matters. Say what you want but be able to back it up with evidence. Especially now in an actual court. Paperwork, recorded calls, words heard by many (not just hearsay).

So to me, all the bad feelings one may have inside in one way or another, means little without evidence. And that goes for both sides. Can't very well accuse Joe or Hunter of crimes or wrongdoing without some sort of physical proof to convict or find factual. (in that case I think there is plenty)

It will be quite interesting, both on witnesses and whether they testify or not, and then what they may or may not know.

Kathianne

01-29-2020, 03:42 PM

I can't say what Bolton knows for sure or doesn't. I do know quite a bit disagree with him and other places where the facts simply don't line up. But again, I wasn't there and don't know anything for sure regarding Bolton.

Most who know me here also know how I feel about the opinions coming from folks who are also looking to profit from a book on the very subject. It's the facts that matter most to me. Regardless of a book or profiting, evidence itself is what matters. Say what you want but be able to back it up with evidence. Especially now in an actual court. Paperwork, recorded calls, words heard by many (not just hearsay).

So to me, all the bad feelings one may have inside in one way or another, means little without evidence. And that goes for both sides. Can't very well accuse Joe or Hunter of crimes or wrongdoing without some sort of physical proof to convict or find factual. (in that case I think there is plenty)

It will be quite interesting, both on witnesses and whether they testify or not, and then what they may or may not know.

Perhaps time will tell or Mitch will secure a few Democrats and get this over with quickly-a very real possibility.

I suppose my point was that Trump is his own worse enemy, he doesn't HAVE to belittle folks, just move along after he fires them or forces them to quit. He. just. can't.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 04:02 PM

Perhaps time will tell or Mitch will secure a few Democrats and get this over with quickly-a very real possibility.

I suppose my point was that Trump is his own worse enemy, he doesn't HAVE to belittle folks, just move along after he fires them or forces them to quit. He. just. can't.

Yup, no doubt there. Folks have memories, don't like being fired, nor talked down to for any of their actions or opinions. Now that shouldn't change anything factually speaking, but can certainly have someone like Mitt want to make it more difficult on him. But in the end, it'll come down to the facts, I hope anyway. But he easily makes his own road much more difficult to travel on as a result of his huge mouth.

That makes him no friend. He can and does these things regardless. "His way". I disagree with his way. But he better not push his luck.

I don't think any of it matters to this point as the dems simply don't have either the facts on their side which matters the most, but they also don't have the numbers. But why oh why oh why take a chance on possibly losing numbers/members? I think he gets acquitted but not without a bit if a fight and delays. I don't think but more than a couple will ultimately vote against him. And he had best hope that no more magical facts come out during this trial.

I think Trump's arrogance and such aside, and looking at it in a non-partisan manner - they simply don't have much of a case, IMO. I don't think that they will get it over with quickly. The Dems would never allow that and on appearances only I simply don't think Roberts would agree fully.

The major problem I see is that they simply didn't have much of a case before they ended the BS in the house. And they know that and hence them wanting to try different angles now. And yup, back to the witnesses again now.

You think they come into play, and if so, who ya think else would be receiving subpoenas?

Kathianne

01-29-2020, 04:08 PM

Yup, no doubt there. Folks have memories, don't like being fired, nor talked down to for any of their actions or opinions. Now that shouldn't change anything factually speaking, but can certainly have someone like Mitt want to make it more difficult on him. But in the end, it'll come down to the facts, I hope anyway. But he easily makes his own road much more difficult to travel on as a result of his huge mouth.

That makes him no friend. He can and does these things regardless. "His way". I disagree with his way. But he better not push his luck.

I don't think any of it matters to this point as the dems simply don't have either the facts on their side which matters the most, but they also don't have the numbers. But why oh why oh why take a chance on possibly losing numbers/members? I think he gets acquitted but not without a bit if a fight and delays. I don't think but more than a couple will ultimately vote against him. And he had best hope that no more magical facts come out during this trial.

I think Trump's arrogance and such aside, and looking at it in a non-partisan manner - they simply don't have much of a case, IMO. I don't think that they will get it over with quickly. The Dems would never allow that and on appearances only I simply don't think Roberts would agree fully.

The major problem I see is that they simply didn't have much of a case before they ended the BS in the house. And they know that and hence them wanting to try different angles now. And yup, back to the witnesses again now.

You think they come into play, and if so, who ya think else would be receiving subpoenas?

Totally agree with the lack of case. The House insured that the procedures would be unfair from day 1. Now they want McConnell to have the Senate do what they should have. More than that, they never did produce the whistleblower, which to me is much more of a problem than the tiff between Trump and Bolton.

FTR, it's not the firings that are the problem, it's his choice on what he says, tweets before and after. He's petty and vindictive, not good qualities for a leader.

STTAB

01-29-2020, 04:14 PM

Totally agree with the lack of case. The House insured that the procedures would be unfair from day 1. Now they want McConnell to have the Senate do what they should have. More than that, they never did produce the whistleblower, which to me is much more of a problem than the tiff between Trump and Bolton.

FTR, it's not the firings that are the problem, it's his choice on what he says, tweets before and after. He's petty and vindictive, not good qualities for a leader.

The red flag to me has always been , why is the ICIG testimony not already public? I want to know why he felt this was credible, I want to know why he defied his boss and sent it to Congress when his boss ruled the other way.I want to know why the ICIG even entertained a "whistleblower" complaint about something the President did when the President is NOT a member of the IC and thus the ICIG has no jurisdiction over him, and most importantly I want to know why Adam Schiff has not released that testimony. Every other piece of testimony from the secret House hearings has been made public, but not that.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 06:04 PM

High_Plains_Drifter

01-29-2020, 06:10 PM

We don't even KNOW what Bolton said, yet, RELIABLY. All we have is another LEAK, by another ANONYMOUS SOURCE, by the NY SLIMES, who's LIED more times than NOT.

How can anyone, seriously, take this "LEAK?" Do we continue this SHIT SHOW on a LEAK by the NY SLIMES?

But even if he said what he said is written in his KISS AND TELL, BUTT HURT BOOK, it still MAKES NO DIFFERENCE! READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

Good God... this crap is otta hand. It needs to END... NOW!

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 06:38 PM

I don't know about a bombshell, but shows what Bolton was going to Ukraine about and answered to an extent about their communications.

---

This Bombshell Interview with John Bolton Will Crush the Democrats

Democrats are desperately trying to get John Bolton to testify in the Senate trial to hear what he has to say about President Trump and Ukraine, in the hopes they can make up for their weak case for impeachment with some brand new bombshell that will turn the tide against Trump.

But the Democrats have already heard from John Bolton. On August 27, 2019, Bolton gave an interview with Radio Free Europe and spoke about both of Trump's phone calls with President Zelensky.

Bolton was asked if he planned to meet with President Zelensky, and what messaged he planned to bring to him.

“Well, I will be meeting Zelensky, he and President Trump have already spoken twice. The President called to congratulate President Zelensky on his election and then on his success in the parliamentary election. They were very warm and cordial calls," Bolton said. [Emphasis added]

Bolton continued, "The success of Ukraine maintaining its freedom, its system of representative government, a free-market economy free of corruption and dealing with problems of the Donbas and the Crimea are high priorities here obviously and high priorities for the United States as well.”

Adam Schiff: "Ask John Bolton."

John Bolton in 2019: @realDonaldTrump's phone calls with President Zelensky were "very warm and cordial... the success of Ukraine ... [maintaining] a free market economy free of corruption ... is high priorit[y] of the US" pic.twitter.com/w6lAuDCKmR

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 29, 2020

Well isn't that interesting? John Bolton described the call very similary to how President Trump has described the call and to how President Zelensky has described the call. No quid pro quo. No blackmail. No linkage between investigations and aid.

It looks like we already know what Bolton really has to say... at least what he had to say before he held a grudge about being fired.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-boltons-bombshell-interview-on-the-trump-zelensky-phone-call/

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 06:46 PM

Another one from Cruz.

--

Ted Cruz: Hold Up – House Democrats Already Rejected John Bolton as Witness in Impeachment Inquiry

The timing of the lightening-quick House impeachment inquiry is coming back to haunt Democrats again as they now cry about desperately needing former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify.

As Adam Schiff gamely tried to explain the need to hear from Bolton now during the question-and-answer period during Wednesday's impeachment trial, it's good to remember that Schiff just blew off Bolton to speed to an impeachment vote.

https://i.imgur.com/nC9O4LR.png

Bolton offered to testify, but Schiff, in such a hurry to get the impeachment out by Christmas, forsook the inevitable court battle it would take to determine if he would be under executive privilege.

In his podcast Tuesday, Senator Ted Cruz said that instead of fighting to get Bolton to testify in the House impeachment inquiry, House Democrats "affirmatively went to the District Court in writing and said 'we don't need John Bolton.'"

Schiff was asked about Bolton testifying during Wednesday's impeachment trial and he switched his story: "Yes, we asked John Bolton to testify in the House and he refused. But we asked his deputy Dr. Kupperman to testify and he refused," he said. "Fortunately, we asked their deputy Fiona Hill to testify and she did. We asked her deputy to testify, Col. Vindman, and he did. But we did seek the testimony of John Bolton and as well as Dr. Kupperman and they refused."

Schiff's latest explanation is in contrast to the Wall Street Journal's reporting of the event last November:

House Democrats didn’t try to compel former national security adviser John Bolton to testify on Thursday in the impeachment probe of President Trump, holding their fire as a federal court plans to rule soon on whether another former White House official can avoid cooperating with lawmakers.
[...]

The decision not to subpoena Mr. Bolton indicated that House Democrats are eager to keep the inquiry on a fast track and don’t want to get bogged down in legal fights. The move deprives Mr. Bolton of a legal avenue to challenge a subpoena and puts pressure on him to accept the ruling in a separate case that raises the same legal question of whether close presidential advisers are entirely immune from testifying.

[...]

The House retracted its subpoena to Kupperman this week, and that's part of the reason why the House hasn't subpoenaed Bolton: to avoid the start of yet another court battle.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/trending/ted-cruz-hold-up-house-democrats-already-rejected-john-bolton-as-witness-in-impeachment-inquiry/

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 07:05 PM

Just reading now that Schiff is still claiming to not know who the whistleblower is. If the (R) has anything at all to prove that wrong, then they need to nail him with that.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 07:10 PM

Does anyone expect Schiff to be honest about anything anymore?

--

Schiff Claims It’s Wrong for President to Investigate Rival — After Defending Obama Investigating Trump

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the Senate that it would be wrong for a president to ask the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival. But Schiff defended then-President Barack Obama doing just that to then-candidate Donald Trump.

The remark came during the first of two days of questions and answers in President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

Schiff was responding to a query osed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), asking a hypothetical question about whether Obama would have had the authority to investigate suspected corruption by a son of Mitt Romney, Obama’s rival in his 2012 re-election campaign.

The lead House manager dismissed the hypothetical, then went on to argue that a president should not ask the DOJ to investigate a rival.

But as Breitbart News noted last week, Schiff wrote in the Washington Post in April 2019 (emphasis added):

Counterintelligence investigations differ from criminal investigations in their means, scope and ultimate disposition. Their goal is not successful prosecutions, but to identify and mitigate threats to national security. If a foreign power possessed compromising information on a U.S. government official in a position of influence, that is a counterintelligence risk. If a foreign power possessed leverage, or the perception of it, over the president, that is a counterintelligence nightmare.

Later on, White House attorney Jay Sekulow noted that Trump had been a victim of exactly the kind of investigation that the Obama administration had initiated under Operation Crossfire Hurricane.

Schiff is on record backing that investigation, as above.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/29/schiff-claims-its-wrong-for-president-to-investigate-rival-after-defending-obama-investigating-trump/

NightTrain

01-29-2020, 07:54 PM

FTR, it's not the firings that are the problem, it's his choice on what he says, tweets before and after. He's petty and vindictive, not good qualities for a leader.

This is exactly why the Democrats have proceeded with this ill-advised misadventure. He tweaked them on Twitter and goaded them until they launched.

That, and he's been incredibly effective as a President... this also served to possibly smear him and have at least a chance at 2020.

It backfired, predictably, and now Pelosi curses the day she went along with intellectual giants such as Maxine Waters and Al Green. Too late now, though,there's no turning back.

Schumer's the smartest of the lot, and I'd give anything to hear his ranting behind closed doors about this no-win trap he's been handed. He's a dirtbag, though, and deserves this.

Yeah, I wish Trump wouldn't kick a guy when he's down, but that's not what I hired him for. I didn't vote for a polite, affable gentleman.

I knew he was an outsider, unafraid to call a spade a spade, and to get shit done. Deregulate, kick terrorist ass, move the embassy, support Israel, stop illegals, stop voter fraud, make rogue dictators rightly fear us, make us energy independent again, annull the countless unconstitutional actions of 0bama, etc. This is all I care about.

Sure, I'll admit that I would much prefer a version of Trump that has all these qualities without unnecessary humiliation of his opponents - even if it's well deserved, it's not necessary. However, his extreme competitive streak that gives us such drive also gives us this. It's the way he is.

You can't buy a 500hp engine without paying the price of vastly increased fuel consumption. This is much the same. We want big results, but there's a downside in less... genteel-ness. In our case, it's the other side anyway so no big loss!

The losers on the other end of Twitter eventually bite back, and that's what this whole thing is about : ego. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler finally got pissed enough to engage in this farce of an impeachment. The other two aren't overly smart, so no surprise... but Nancy, as much as I dislike her, is smart. There was a tweet that triggered her over the edge and she was committed - I can't help wonder if there was booze involved.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump certainly isn't perfect - but he's the best candidate for the job to straighten shit out after 8 years of incompetence.

He was the best in 2016 and he's hands down the best on the field in 2020.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 08:32 PM

This is exactly why the Democrats have proceeded with this ill-advised misadventure. He tweaked them on Twitter and goaded them until they launched.

Perhaps that, and you also had the squad folks who have demanded impeachment from day one. Then yeps, Waters and Green, 2 useless bastards, but of course they pressured. Blumenthal pressured. Manchin and Murphy also from CT. Hell, then some started to accuse her of abuse of power for refusing to submit the articles.

But I think you are referring to even prior to their inquiry in the house? There, no doubt, he did basically goad them, and even daring them at one point.

That, and he's been incredibly effective as a President... this also served to possibly smear him and have at least a chance at 2020.

This I believe became a part of their plans from day one when their prior plans didn't pan out and he won out anyway over their anointed one. They knew they were screwed for 8 years unless they could find a way to take this away from Trump. one way or another.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump certainly isn't perfect - but he's the best candidate for the job to straighten shit out after 8 years of incompetence.

He was the best in 2016 and he's hands down the best on the field in 2020.

Can you imagine ANY of them in the field actually winning? We would be screwed, almost as bad as we would have been if Hillary had won. And might be just as bad if they keep the house and take the senate.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 08:38 PM

Just reading now that Schiff is still claiming to not know who the whistleblower is. If the (R) has anything at all to prove that wrong, then they need to nail him with that.

IMO, it's obvious that this man is lying. If they know or can prove otherwise, can they not do anything at all about all of his lies/shenanigans?

--

GOP Accuses Serial Liar Adam Schiff of Misleading Public After He Brazenly Claims on Senate Floor He Doesn’t Know Identity of the Whistleblower

He did it again!

Impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff on Wednesday brazenly claimed on the Senate floor that he has no clue who the whistleblower is.

Everyone knows Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower.

Ciaramella’s name was in one of the transcripts Schiff released a few months ago, but he has ‘no clue’ who he is.

Several lawmakers including Rep. Gohmert and Senator Rand Paul have publicly dropped the whistleblower’s name.

But Schiff, with a straight face lied to Senators and claimed, “First of all, I don’t know who the whistleblower is. I haven’t met them or communicated with them in any way.”

Schiff continued to lie: “The committee staff did not write the complaint or coach the whistleblower what to put in the complaint.”

House Republicans called out liar Schiff after he claimed once again that he does not know the identity of the whistleblower.

Why is Schiff continually getting away with this lie?

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/gop-accuses-serial-liar-adam-schiff-of-misleading-public-after-he-brazenly-claims-on-senate-floor-he-doesnt-know-identity-of-the-whistleblower-video/

Kathianne

01-29-2020, 08:51 PM

This is exactly why the Democrats have proceeded with this ill-advised misadventure. He tweaked them on Twitter and goaded them until they launched.

That, and he's been incredibly effective as a President... this also served to possibly smear him and have at least a chance at 2020.

It backfired, predictably, and now Pelosi curses the day she went along with intellectual giants such as Maxine Waters and Al Green. Too late now, though,there's no turning back.

Schumer's the smartest of the lot, and I'd give anything to hear his ranting behind closed doors about this no-win trap he's been handed. He's a dirtbag, though, and deserves this.

Yeah, I wish Trump wouldn't kick a guy when he's down, but that's not what I hired him for. I didn't vote for a polite, affable gentleman.

I knew he was an outsider, unafraid to call a spade a spade, and to get shit done. Deregulate, kick terrorist ass, move the embassy, support Israel, stop illegals, stop voter fraud, make rogue dictators rightly fear us, make us energy independent again, annull the countless unconstitutional actions of 0bama, etc. This is all I care about.

Sure, I'll admit that I would much prefer a version of Trump that has all these qualities without unnecessary humiliation of his opponents - even if it's well deserved, it's not necessary. However, his extreme competitive streak that gives us such drive also gives us this. It's the way he is.

You can't buy a 500hp engine without paying the price of vastly increased fuel consumption. This is much the same. We want big results, but there's a downside in less... genteel-ness. In our case, it's the other side anyway so no big loss!

The losers on the other end of Twitter eventually bite back, and that's what this whole thing is about : ego. Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler finally got pissed enough to engage in this farce of an impeachment. The other two aren't overly smart, so no surprise... but Nancy, as much as I dislike her, is smart. There was a tweet that triggered her over the edge and she was committed - I can't help wonder if there was booze involved.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump certainly isn't perfect - but he's the best candidate for the job to straighten shit out after 8 years of incompetence.

He was the best in 2016 and he's hands down the best on the field in 2020.
Nope, has to do with folks like Bolton, McConnell, and others in the party that no longer belong.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 08:58 PM

Looks like Schiff did it yet again. And he will continue to lie like this because nothing is really stopping him. Sad little bastard.

1222602392396607488

Kathianne

01-29-2020, 09:04 PM

Schumer says it’s unlikely there will be witnesses. The dems will beat the “unfairness “ of the hearings, but they would have anyway.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 09:10 PM

Schumer says it’s unlikely there will be witnesses. The dems will beat the “unfairness “ of the hearings, but they would have anyway.

As I'm to understand, they may have the votes to prevent witnesses?

GOP Senators Now Believe They Have The Votes To Block Witnesses

There’s a reason Mitch McConnell has been Senate Majority Leader for the past 13 years: He gets the job done.

And the biggest part of that job is keeping the GOP caucus, however necessary. At this point, he appears to have pulled off the feat once again.

On Wednesday, McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) — always a wavering and unreliable GOP vote — met in the morning. After that meeting, The Hill reported, it was clear “that the question of having additional witnesses is settled, and the Senate will vote Friday to wrap up the impeachment trial of President Trump.”

There was no discussion of witnesses at a Senate GOP lunch meeting Wednesday, which was held a couple hours after McConnell and Murkowski met for about 20 to 30 minutes.

That was seen as a sign by several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses. Without a vote to hear from witnesses, the trial could end as soon as Friday.

“We’re going to get it done by Friday, hopefully,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said following the meeting.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), emerging from the lunch, said, “I think I can say the mood is good.”

Braun expressed confidence that McConnell will be able to keep his conference unified enough to defeat a motion to consider subpoenas for additional witnesses and documents.

“If I had to guess, no witnesses,” he said.

“We’ll be in a place where I think everyone is going to have their mind made up and I believe that we’ll be able to move to a verdict, and the witness question will be clear at that point,” Braun added.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-gop-senators-now-believe-they-have-the-votes-to-block-witnesses/

Kathianne

01-29-2020, 09:15 PM

Yep, Schumer is admitting it and will yell ‘foul.’ It would be more convincing if he’d done the same with the house.

jimnyc

01-29-2020, 09:34 PM

Yep, Schumer is admitting it and will yell ‘foul.’ It would be more convincing if he’d done the same with the house.

Exactly. And considering most knew that the odds were along with acquittal based on the numbers alone. So naturally I'm sure they started coming up with all kinds of ways to condemn the senate handling of this case. :rolleyes:

And he can yell all he wants. They had a chance to build a better case. They had a chance to follow all the rules. Now it's a court case. And if tactics need to be done to win, then so be it.

STTAB

01-30-2020, 09:13 AM

I dunno about in the senate, but the white house isn't too keen on his book.

Confidential information & Top Secret information to go along with that. If that is in fact true, then they should shut it down. There's enough leaks already from this administration and the supposed 'deep state' crap.

So for now they are trying to put a stop to it, or at least have him remove certain sections ultimately. And it states it found "significant amounts" of confidential information. "Reasonably to be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security of the USA if disclosed without authorization"

Sounds quite "grave" as they put it. But I doubt it's that bad, of course. But if it did in fact contain THAT much, then it would need to be stopped. Just some rewriting or a few removals and onward anyway, after another review.

https://i.imgur.com/474tfqx.png

Jim, without even realizing it you just fed into the new narrative that the WH is trying to stop Bolton from publishing his book, when that is not true. The WH is not attempting to stop shit. That letter is from the NSC staff who are required by law to review every manuscript before publishing and insure that there is no classified material in it.

Nothing to do with what the WH wants at all.

jimnyc

01-30-2020, 09:30 AM

Jim, without even realizing it you just fed into the new narrative that the WH is trying to stop Bolton from publishing his book, when that is not true. The WH is not attempting to stop shit. That letter is from the NSC staff who are required by law to review every manuscript before publishing and insure that there is no classified material in it.

Nothing to do with what the WH wants at all.

My bad if I gave that direct impression, but I know they all (writing books) need approval first and that it is standard procedure.

Yep, perhaps the 'not even realizing it part', but otherwise I'm aware. And I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong ideas.

It is all coincidental but nonetheless seems helpful at the time. If the stuff the NSC is saying is true, then no doubt it needs to be removed or rewritten so as not to be pushing out any confidential information. But I am aware that this is not the WH. But I do wonder IF they have any say or pull in the matter, and that wouldn't surprise me in the least. And then of course coming out in the midst of the trial, that only gives the liars on tv that much more lies to run with.

If Bolton chooses to come out and disagree, that's his choice. Otherwise it's just a matter of editing what is listed as confidential to them, another review, and it will come out anyway. It won't be hard to find out in the end if they were trying to yank anything legit (which I doubt).

STTAB

01-30-2020, 09:38 AM

My bad if I gave that direct impression, but I know they all (writing books) need approval first and that it is standard procedure.

Yep, perhaps the 'not even realizing it part', but otherwise I'm aware. And I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong ideas.

It is all coincidental but nonetheless seems helpful at the time. If the stuff the NSC is saying is true, then no doubt it needs to be removed or rewritten so as not to be pushing out any confidential information. But I am aware that this is not the WH. But I do wonder IF they have any say or pull in the matter, and that wouldn't surprise me in the least. And then of course coming out in the midst of the trial, that only gives the liars on tv that much more lies to run with.

If Bolton chooses to come out and disagree, that's his choice. Otherwise it's just a matter of editing what is listed as confidential to them, another review, and it will come out anyway. It won't be hard to find out in the end if they were trying to yank anything legit (which I doubt).

Just saying, we gotta be careful not to give the left any more ammunition. Wish someone would tell Trump that, he sure needs to hear it.