Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
John Bolton and the Leaked Manuscript
Just when we could see the impeachment trial winding down as the President’s defense team squashed the House Managers, we learn that the John Bolton manuscript of his new book has been leaked. What a shock. The manuscript has not been quoted and the references to it have been vague. (The NY Times article is behind a paywall.)
The manuscript was sent to the National Security Council’s Records Management Division for a “standard prepublication security review” on December 30, in the belief that no classified information was included. Over the weekend, the information was conveniently leaked to the New York Times. Yet there was this report:
Sarah Tinsley, an adviser to Bolton, told Axios that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations sent the draft manuscript only to the White House for a prepublication review by the National Security Council. ‘The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period,’ she said.
Given her report, it’s difficult to pinpoint who might have leaked it. Here’s a report from the Conservative Treehouse:
Remember the issue a little more than a week ago when the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is said to be under a security-related investigation?
On Friday January 17th, 2020, the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is currently under a security investigation.
Is that evidence of anything? No.
Others have been suggested as suspects for leaking the manuscript, but no one has any evidence. So here’s what I want to point out, and get your input:
- I don’t think John Bolton was behind the leak, but he’s also not surprised. What do you think?
- I think Bolton should offer an interview to a news outlet where he can set the record straight. He doesn’t have to provide quotes from his book, but he can either validate or invalidate the implication that Trump told him that he wanted to hold funds from Ukraine unless they investigated as he’d supposedly requested. He should agree to an interview by midweek.
- I’m trying to figure out why Bolton has offered to testify if subpoenaed:
- He wants revenge against Trump for firing him and will tell everything that he thinks he can share.
- He wants publicity for his book.
- He wants to humiliate the Democrats by refusing to testify due to Executive Privilege. (I hope this is the reason.)
- Do you think they’ll agree to call witnesses to examine Bolton, or will the specter of a Biden debacle stop the Democrats?
I just want the Senate Impeachment trial to be over. What do you hope, or believe, John Bolton will do now?
Published in Politics
Bolton is going to tell the impeachment court 2 things:
There was a quid pro quo.
The administration’s handling of foreign affairs was devastatingly incompetent. He will be supported by others, and has been supported by others.
And Hunter Biden is going to say this:
“I did nothing wrong. I never had any conversation about Burisma with my father when he was VP.”
And there are no facts to dispute his claim.
Well, they should just call you in, since you know everything.
Does anyone really think that Hunter Biden is actually going to say anything that helps Trump? Not a chance. And there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was involved in an corruption. He, and a number of other big names, were placed on Burisma’s board to lend it credibility. BOD members do not really do anything, except for approval of actions taken by executive leadership. They play no role in operations of a company. And there was nothing on the radar of the DOJ that there was an issue with Hunter Biden and Burisma, thus Trump had no justification to ask for an investigation.
And it is also unlikely that Bolton’s testimony, which will be heard, will help Trump’s case.
For reasons I have stated on various posts I don’t think any witnesses should be called. I do think that if Hunter was called he could be asked questions that convey the desired information regardless of his responses. I have faced witnesses before that wouldn’t give an inch, but often times questions posed made not giving an inch obvious that they are not being candid. For example Hunter could say that he did nothing wrong, did not talk to his father about Burisma but if he says he knew something about energy before his appointment (falsifiable), if he says he knew Ukrainian (falsifiable), if he says did not meet with certain US government officials (falsifiable), if he says he had no role in securing US-backed funding (falsifiable), etc. then you have something that demonstrates the reasonableness of Trump’s inquiry for reasons unassociated with solely personal political benefit.
My husband had a couple of bizarre but fascinating scenarios regarding the calling of witnesses. (1) They somehow get the votes to stop the calling of witnesses; (2) They vote to call witnesses, but every time a witness’ name is offered, they get enough votes to stop it; (3) They vote to call witnesses, but Schumer and McConnell work out a deal behind the scenes of (2) above, since neither really wants to call witnesses. This would give both sides credibility and hide any sins.
Do you think he will testify that the prosecutor who replaced the one fired at his daddy’s behest was “solid”?
Biden is an escalation. “You want witnesses, fine we want Biden.” If they open that door, who knows what happens. This is already ugly. It can get uglier. Imagine if the Republicans approve the defense asking for Schiff to testify. There’s no doubt he’s opened himself up to a demand with his ham handed dictatorial management of the House investigation. There’s no good will there. No professional respect.
As to Bolton, does anyone know what he would say? We don’t even know what he said in his book. Wouldn’t it be prudent, to have him deposed in a controlled setting where the White House could make privilege claims. And we know John Roberts is nothing if not prudent.
And why are we even thinking about this? If it doesn’t get the votes of 67 Senators, it seems like a colossal blunder on the order of the Battle of the Somme.
The rules adopted by the Senate for the impeachment trial provide for depositions before testimony.
So continued political theater? Questions like “have you stopped kicking your dog”? I highlighted a key part of your response. In what countries is this done?
Chief Justice Roberts, in the questioning, will be able to deny specific questions. It will not be a fishing expedition.
So unless he takes the fifth, Hunter Biden is going to come out of this like a great guy. Because there is no evidence he has to answer to. None. So there will be no basis to say that he lied. None. Hunter is a class A jerk, but that is not a crime, and Roberts isn’t going to allow anyone to dig into his past that is not related to the topic at hand. First and foremost, Roberts is an experienced judge.
This whole damn thing has been a fishing expedition since 2016.
I ‘ll go with a fishing expedition where the person holding the reel puts dead fish on the line to make it look like they’ve caught something
@billnelson, I don’t think any of us know how this will go procedurally. Roberts, by the way, is not an experienced trial judge and its unclear whether objections will be authorized, the role of witness counsel and on and on. So discussion about what witnesses would say, could say, etc. is sort of the blind leading the blind at this juncture. I don’t think any witnesses should be called.
There is no information that I’ve seen that Roberts would be engaged if there were any disputes about who a witness could be, relevant or not. I can’t imagine that he wants anything to do with that kind of decision. I think a person can be put up as a witness and a vote takes place. Vote up or down. Then move on.
Witnesses will be called and this thing will drag because the press will insist on it. It gives them stuff for media.
Witnesses will be called because somebody wants the senators running to not be in the field.
Witnesses will be called because it may damage Biden.
Witnesses will be called because it may damage or impeach Trump.
witnesses will be called because the House demands it.
Witnesses will be called because the Democrat base requires it.
I find it funny that a low level non paid Trump campaign associate made a questionable brag in a bar in a foreign country and the federal government thought it so alarming as to open multiple investigations, wiretapped, etc.,Trump and others but the VP of the country’s son gets a board of director position making several times what other boards pay in a field he has no experience in and a language he can’t speak and his dad the VP shuts down an investigation of the son/company and brags about it regularly but nobody bats an eye. What is wrong with this picture?
True. And Trump has been stalking the lake.
What is wrong is the key part of your statement.
The investigation into the Trump campaign should never have happened. Investigations can only begin when there evidence that a crime has been committed.
And so Trump, also with no evidence, is asking a foreign government with a questionable history of corruption with investigations, to do an investigation? Also, not good. This is the real abuse of power, the president targeting a US citizen.
VP Biden did not shut down any investigation. US policy at the time, as well as the IMF and other European governments was to have the prosecutor removed because there were no actions to help resolve the corruption issue. And Burisma corporate actions were not being investigated, The majority owner, one Mykola Zlochevsky (not sure what makes one an oligarch), was being investigated over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010-2012. He was eventually cleared, then the “clearing” was overturned. Most of the allegations center around his actions while in government.
The prosecutor Biden brags about getting fired was Viktor Shokin, and was delaying all such investigations, and at the time of his firing, there were no investigations into Burisma. Also, when Hunter Biden got the position, there were no investigations. And further more, there were a number of civil organizations (such as the Anti Corruption Action Centre) inside the Ukraine also calling for Shokin to be fired.
There are no facts which would support any call by the US government for such an investigation. None.
That’s a pretty sorry comeback. I’m going to have to give you negative Pee Wee points.
Investigations get started for all sort of reasons. It was not improper for the government to explore the possibility of Trump corruption. What was improper was them not shutting it down when it became obvious there was none and then expanding the investigation outside a reasonable scope, even that could be defensible it was making the investigation public and weaponizing it that is the issue. Same with Trump. Trump asking Ukraine to work with the DOJ to investigate possible issues involving 2016 corruption around the 2016 election is defensible. It was the whistle blower and Democrat publicizing that makes it an issue. As for if Biden or his son did anything illegal, I doubt it. Unethical, most likely. But we live in a very corrupt nation and our legal system is designed to allow the elite to live off the corruption.
The funny thing is that the data show that Shokin had shown himself to be very active and efficient in prosecuting corruption compared to his predecessors and in comparison to the crook (the guy Joe Biden said was “solid”) who was appointed in his place. Lutsenko took over in and went after Burisma on a tax case. Burisma owed $40 million for non-payment of taxes. Lutsenko collected $7 million, which cancelled any further obligations on the part of Burisma, and then he called it a “success.”
Well, the payments to Hunter Biden had to come from somewhere, didn’t they? And we wouldn’t want all that money to instead go to the Ukrainian government for infrastructure projects and who knows what, would we?
Oh, and calling Lutsenko a crook is not just namecalling. With his criminal record, it took a special dispensation from the Ukrainian parliament to allow him to serve. Nice solid guy you got there, Joe.
In the first place if the Senate gives Hunter Biden immunity for his testimony he can’t take the fifth. In the second place Chief Justice Roberts can’t exclude any questions the Senate wants to ask if 51 Senator’s want to ask it. He is a presiding officer; however, he has little real power in the what happens once witnesses are called. I suppose he could refuse to read the questions even after a Senate majority votes to overrule him. I don’t think he’ll do that though.
He can say or not say what he wants. It is not like anybody is going to jail him or water board him over this. In Hunters case he can just say he does not remember because of all the hookers and blow .
I don’t think he’ll want any part of those decisions. He always avoids anything that looks political. Let the two sides duke it out.
Not when he ruled on ObamaCare.
His excuse is that he also did not want to look partisan, like rejecting the Left for the Right would look that way. Right. I expect he’ll turn into a pretzel any day now.
That’s probably how it is in the hallowed circles in which he moves: right is partisan, left is the normal centrist state of things.
Trump did not ask this, he asked for an investigation of Biden(s). And the DOJ had no such investigation. Ask a country to cooperate with a DOJ investigation is ok, but there was no investigation, no reason for an investigation, and even today, no reason for an investigation.
Can’t understand Republicans who hate Trump so much they would accept Biden’s corruption, Democrat wishes, and McMuffin (2016)/Romney (2020) leadership.
They’re neither Republicans nor Conservatives. They’re just trying to gaslight you.
Decorum trumps ideology. Better to have someone who is considered mannered and not a vulgar cretin in his personal habits than to elect someone who might get at least some of the conservative agenda passed and judges confirmed, because those things in the future will always be stained by the fact that Donald Trump did them.
And in terms of the Biden v. Trump question, wacky Uncle Joe was something less than lovable in his 2012 VP debate against Paul Ryan, and when confronted by uncomfortable questions on the campaign trail tends to berate the questioner, whether or not it’s a media person or just some local who happened to show up at the event. Not exactly the avatar of mannered political behavior, but the key thing is the truly important arbiters of taste won’t call Biden out for his transgressions in the same way they will Trump, so that by definition makes him the more polite candidate (never mind that it’s way easier to be ‘polite’ when most of the media’s only asking you fawning questions and giving you softball coverage).