Are The Democrats Preparing Bolton For A Comey-Like Makeover?

The Ukraine scandal racketed up further with the testimony of Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor who testified that President Donald Trump held up military aid until the Ukrainians agreed to investigate election interference and Hunter Biden’s business dealings. While Taylor was the headliner this week, another figure appears to be emerging as the matinee star: John Bolton. When the Ukraine story broke, I stated that the likely key for Congress would be Bolton who had only recently been fired. Taylor reaffirmed earlier reports that Bolton spotted the serious danger of the Ukraine call and worked to prevent it as a “disaster” in the making.

Of course, in order to use Bolton, he will have to go through a Comey-like makeover from one of the most reviled figures to a heroic figure in the scandal for Democrats. With Comey, Democrats had to pivot from calling for his sacking to heralding him as a savior. Such are the fortunes of politics in Washington.

Bolton has been referenced by sources have being livid over the withholding of Ukraine aid as well as the highly inappropriate conduct of Rudy Giuliani in dealings with the country.

Taylor also added from damaging elements, including saying that there were instructions for people not to take notes in critical meetings. That can be seen as awareness of the impropriety of the nexus drawn between aid and the investigations. Taylor has suggested that a quid pro quo was acknowledged by other officials.

In his opening remarks to House members, Taylor said that there were two channels — official and unofficial — in Ukraine. The later involved Giuliani who has greatly magnified damage to the White House through his reckless conduct.

Republicans insist that Taylor was forced to acknowledge conflicts in his testimony. However, the Democrats have decided to keep this testimony behind closed doors. This allows members to just leak what they want the public to see. It is a poor way to dealing with an impeachment investigation which is a matter of great national concern.


306 thoughts on “Are The Democrats Preparing Bolton For A Comey-Like Makeover?”

  1. Incidentally, I think what is really going on here is that Trump has introduced a modicum (perhaps not much) of realism to our foreign policy. Neoconservative/liberal interventionists do not compromise with someone who does that, and they will grasp onto anything at their disposal to undermine such a person.

    1. This fellow who testified wasted a great deal of verbiage with his personal biography and a precis of his views. There’s a definite vibe that he’s an advocate for the Ukrainian political class within the administration rather than a promoter of American policy. Anxiety about Foreign Service employees ‘going native’ has a long pedigree. (Helping the Ukraine ward off Russian harassment is one thing. However, if the situation gets sorted eventually, it will have to be resolved by compromise of some sort, and the contents of that it’s a reasonable wager will not include retrocession of the Crimea or the Ukraine joining the EU.

      1. TIA says well:

        “Helping the Ukraine ward off Russian harassment is one thing. However, if the situation gets sorted eventually, it will have to be resolved by compromise of some sort, and the contents of that it’s a reasonable wager will not include retrocession of the Crimea or the Ukraine joining the EU.”

        I would lay heavy odds odds on that proposition as well.

    2. yes exactly. what trump is doing is realistic, thus wise, and thus powerful

      he’s been pilloried as a fool when his actions in foreign policy prove him less of one than the many “more qualified” presidents who preceded him.

      even if he is not re-elected, the directions he’s taken in de-conflicting with Russia, and pulling out of Syria, will have positive ramifications for a long time coming

      Deconflicting with Russia is a matter of existential importance. The adventurism in American foreign policy can get us all KILLED. Literally.

      (George Beebe is vice president and director of studies at the Center for the National Interest, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington. He is also the former head of Russia analysis at the CIA, and the author of The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe.)

      “In the 1950s and 1960s, Americans genuinely and rightly feared the prospect of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Schoolchildren regularly participated in air raid drills. Federal, state and local governments prepared for operations in the event of a nuclear emergency. More than a few worried citizens built backyard bomb shelters and stockpiled provisions.

      Today, that old dread of disaster has all but disappeared, as have the systems that helped preclude it. But the actual threat of nuclear catastrophe is much greater than we realize. Diplomacy and a desire for global peace have given way to complacency and a false sense of security that nuclear escalation is outside the realm of possibility. That leaves us unprepared for—and highly vulnerable to—a nuclear attack from Russia.

      The most recent sign of American complacency was the death, a few weeks ago, of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty—a pivotal 1987 agreement that introduced intrusive on-site inspection provisions, destroyed an entire class of dangerous weaponry, and convinced both Washington and Moscow that the other wanted strategic stability more than strategic advantage. The New START treaty, put in place during the Obama administration, appears headed for a similar fate in 2021. In fact, nearly all the key U.S.-Russian arms control and confidence-building provisions of the Cold War era are dead or on life support, with little effort underway to update or replace them.

      Meanwhile, U.S. officials from both parties are focused not on how we might avoid nuclear catastrophe but on showing how tough they can look against a revanchist Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin. Summit meetings between White House and Kremlin leaders, once viewed as opportunities for peace, are now seen as dangerous temptations to indulge in Munich-style appeasement, the cardinal sin of statecraft. American policymakers worry more about “going wobbly,” as Margaret Thatcher once put it, than about a march of folly into inadvertent war. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the United States and Russia might explore ways to manage their differences diplomatically has produced mostly head-scratching and condemnation.

      In my more than 25 years of government experience working on Russia matters, I’ve seen that three misguided assumptions underlie how the United States got to this point.

      The first is that American policymakers think that because neither side wants nuclear war, then such a war is very unlikely to occur. Russia would be foolish, we reason, to cross swords with the powerful U.S. military and risk its own self-destruction, and many Americans find it hard to imagine that modern cyber duels, proxy battles, information operations and economic warfare might somehow erupt into direct nuclear attacks. If the Cold War ended peacefully, the thinking goes, why should America worry that a new shadow war with a much less formidable Russia will end any differently?

      But wars do not always begin by design. Just as they did in 1914, a vicious circle of clashing geopolitical ambitions, distorted perceptions of each other’s intent, new and poorly understood technologies, and disappearing rules of the game could combine to produce a disaster that neither side wants nor expects.

      In fact, cyber technologies, artificial intelligence, advanced hypersonic weapons delivery systems and antisatellite weaponry are making the U.S.-Russian shadow war much more complex and dangerous than the old Cold War competition. They are blurring traditional lines between espionage and warfare, entangling nuclear and conventional weaponry, and erasing old distinctions between offensive and defensive operations. Whereas the development of nuclear weaponry in the Cold War produced the concept of mutually assured destruction and had a restraining effect, in the cyber arena, playing offense is increasingly seen as the best defense. And in a highly connected world in which financial networks, commercial operations, media platforms, and nuclear command and control systems are all linked in some way, escalation from the cyber world into the physical domain is a serious danger.

      Cyber technology is also magnifying fears of our adversaries’ strategic intentions while prompting questions about whether warning systems can detect incoming attacks and whether weapons will fire when buttons are pushed. This makes containing a crisis that might arise between U.S. and Russian forces over Ukraine, Iran or anything else much more difficult. It is not hard to imagine a crisis scenario in which Russia cyber operators gain access to a satellite system that controls both U.S. conventional and nuclear weapons systems, leaving the American side uncertain about whether the intrusion is meant to gather information about U.S. war preparations or to disable our ability to conduct nuclear strikes. This could cause the U.S. president to wonder whether he faces an urgent “use it or lose it” nuclear launch decision. It doesn’t help that the lines of communication between the United States and Russia necessary for managing such situations are all but severed.

      A related, second assumption American policymakers make is seeing the Russian threat as primarily a deterrence problem. The logic goes something like this: Wars often happen because the states that start them believe they can win, but the United States can disabuse a would-be aggressor of this belief through a show of force, thus deterring conflict. Indeed, Washington seems convinced that showing the Kremlin it will punish Russian transgressions—through toughened economic sanctions, an enhanced military posture in Europe and more aggressive cyber operations—is the best path to preserving peace.

      But, when dealing with states that believe they are under some form of assault, focusing on deterrence can be counterproductive. Rather than averting aggression by demonstrating the will to fight back, America might be unintentionally increasing the odds of a war. To a great degree, this is the situation the United States already faces. Years of enlargement of NATO and perceived U.S. involvement in Russia’s internal affairs have convinced the Kremlin that America poses an existential threat. In turn, Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, coupled with a string of aggressions against its neighbors, have convinced Washington that Moscow is going for the West’s jugular.

      The United States experienced this spiral phenomenon with Georgia in 2008. Convinced that Russia harbored aggressive designs on its southern neighbor, Washington policymakers accelerated U.S. military training in Georgia, openly advocated bringing Tbilisi into the NATO alliance and issued multiple warnings to Moscow against military action, believing this firm resolve would deter Russian aggression. In fact, it had the opposite effect. Russia grew increasingly alarmed by the prospect of Georgian membership in NATO, while Tbilisi felt emboldened to launch a military operation in the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, which yielded an immediate and massive Russian military response.

      Lastly, the United States assumes that Russia’s anti-American hostility flows from the internal nature of its regime, and therefore is likely to diminish when a more enlightened leader with more liberal approaches succeeds Putin. Sooner or later, the unsatisfied longing for freedom will produce new leadership in Russia that will advance liberal reforms and seek cordial relations with Washington, just as Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin once did. Compromising with the Putin regime, American policymakers believe, is not only immoral, but also unnecessary and counterproductive.

      But the notion that Moscow hates us for what we are—a democracy—rather than the ways we influence important Russian interests is inconsistent with Russia’s business-like, if not cordial, relations with democracies that it does not see as threatening, including Israel, India and Japan. Moreover, Putin’s domestic critics include not only the country’s narrow slice of liberal reformers but also its wider expanse of hard-liners on the left and right who think he has been too soft on Washington. The reality is that Russia’s differences with Washington flow from a deep mix of geopolitical, perceptual, historical and systemic factors that will not go away once Putin eventually does.

      Managing and containing the combustive mixture of volatile factors in the U.S.-Russian relationship is a daunting, but far from impossible, challenge. Washington’s approach must dispassionately balance firmness with accommodation, military readiness with diplomatic outreach—all without skewing too far toward either concession or confrontation. It’s a difficult balance, but the United States is not even attempting it at the moment. It will require more robust U.S.-Russian communication, as well as new rules of the game to deal with new weapons systems, game-changing cyber technologies and the shifting geopolitical order.

      None of this will be possible, however, absent a recognition that real danger is looming—not a modern variation of World War II-style planned aggression, but a nascent World War I-type escalatory spiral that few recognize is developing. That danger could end catastrophically if nothing changes.”


    By all accounts, Taylor’s testimony was the most damaging yet. He essentially confirmed that a quid pro quo existed regarding military aid to Ukraine. Taylor described an ‘unofficial channel’ that seemed to be directing diplomacy towards Ukraine with the goal of getting Zelenksy to publicly affirm Trump’s conspiracies.

    But oddly Professor Turley is playing down the damage Taylor inflicted. One suspects that Trump-supporting friends caught up with the professor and told him how ‘serious’ this is. Everything conservatives have ever worked for could be lost if Trump goes down.

    So today Jonathan Turley is back in the Republican fold telling us that Democrats will have to re-cast Bolton as sympathetic. A column that makes Democrats looks cynical while understating the hole Taylor ripped open.

      1. Yes, DSS. It appears a bunch of us have already noticed, but Peter continues to display the same ignorant posting style as he did under Peter Hill, Shill, Gates, PH and others. Take note how he continuously runs away from what he has written. It must be pretty embarrassing for him to have to continuously run away from what he says.

    1. Not…..You fail to consider ( let alone mention) Bolton’s history as well as perceived bias after losing his job. Moreover, neither you nor I know the extent of Ratcliffe’s “cross-examination” of Taylor, which Schiff seems to want to hide. I am a litigator, and I am wholly disgustec with Schiff’s game-playing, which he thinks is clevef, but in reality, further undermines America’s trust.


    2. What Hole? The ahole ‘s testimony is covered with a filthy, leaky gauze of Congressional privacy.

    3. Peter, can you tell us “the damage Taylor inflicted”? Did you ever wonder why they didn’t produce the questions and answers? No. That would require intellect. Did you consider the fact that what he provided was opinion on policy? No. That would require you to have studied civics. Did you consider the fact that he indulged in hearsay? No. That would require you to have the most minimal knowledge of the law.

      The damage Taylor inflicted was on the intellectually challenged that do not know how to think and are basically uneducated.

  3. The essence of the impeachment drama…

    Democrat Politicians: “We can milk this cow all the way into 2025”
    Republican Politicians: “Run away…run away…”
    Mainstream media: “Money-Money-Money…….Money.”
    Leftists: [unintelligible due to foaming at the mouth]
    Social Justice Warriors: “Orange man racist. He hates people ’cause of their skin color.”
    Average Person: “McDonald’s or Olive Garden, honey?”

      1. Anon, the person you’re directing that question at could be Estovir or Alan, for all we really know. There’s not much light of day between their typical comments.

        1. Job? I don’t need to work Peter. Further this type of job would pay more than a decimal point below my paygrade. But, however little they do pay they would be paying you too much for what you do.

    1. Darren – yep, that’s about it. This would hold true for all of the dozen or so impeachment attempts.

  4. I would like some clarification from the Professor or anybody else on the board. Biden has admitted on camera that he told the Ukrainians that the United States would withhold $1 billion dollars in loan guarantees unless Ukraine fired its head prosecutor.

    The goal of this supposed “quid pro quo” strikes me as legally incidental. It is a demand that another country do something or money will be withheld.

    I am not claiming that Trump did the same thing, but for legal purposes, let’s say he did.

    As with previous outrages, no statutes are being cited. Is someone going to come up with a bribery statute or some other kind of statute and explain how it applies to Biden and possibly Trump?

    I am not aware of any statutes that apply to support for or opposition to foreign aid, whether it be legislative or by executive order regardless of the reasons the person supports or opposes. Strikes me as a pretty slippery slope.

    1. Steve, you need to read a newspaper.
      Biden was acting in his official capacity and in public to remove a corrupt prosecutor. That was announced policy of the administration as well as the IMF and the UK. I assure you they did not GAF about Hunter Biden’s $50k a month.

      1. Steve, you need to read a newspaper. Biden was acting in his official capacity and in public to remove a corrupt prosecutor.

        1. Who says he’s corrupt? And why would that induce his successor to not investigate Hunter’s gig?

        2. If you notice, the cookie-pushers keep telling us it was terribly irregular for Trump to raise the matter of investigations. Which evidently it’s not if Biden’s doing it on behalf of his son.

        1. TIA, since you obviously need more clues, Trump did not publicly call for an investigation as Joe Biden did, nor was he acting in the interest of stated US and Western Europe policy as Joe Biden was.

          I hope that helps.

          1. Joe Biden wasn’t calling for an investigation. He was trying to stop one by having the prosecutor removed and then later trying to deal with the prosecutor that was replacing the former one. Ask the people representing Burisma for what they said.

          2. Investigating allegations of corruption in US government international dealings is not acting in the best interest of the United States?

            Well, I guess if you’re a Leftist dictacrat.

      2. The reasons for the “illegal” act committed by Biden are legally incidental. It doesn’t matter if others wanted the prosecutor removed or if it was stated U.S. policy to remove him or if it was stated U.S. policy to commit the “illegal’ act of using money as leverage.
        I’m still waiting for some kind of statute that applies to someone who uses foreign aid as leverage. I’m not aware of any.

        1. Steve, Trump used the power of his office, including withholding congressionally approved aid, to advance his personal goals, that is reelection. Biden did not. He used the power of his office to advance official US policy.

          This is not difficult.

          1. LOL! Correct. That narrative is not difficult to understand at all. It’s asinine on its face, but that’s of no concern to a base without any intellectual curiosity.

              1. Perhaps Olly can venture why it is asinine….

                I could, but it would be equally asinine to believe it would make any difference. No, you’ve defied the law of holes for 3 years, just go ahead and keep digging. The blog archives appreciates your *ahem* contributions.

                  1. Didn’t think, so.

                    Fixed it for you.

                    BTW, that’s your fundamental problem. And after 3 years, you’re showing no signs it is correctable. You’ve become a blend of Hill and Natacha and the archives prove that out.

          2. This was an honest legal enquire on my part Anon. It looks like the goals of the two acts are legally incidental. You want to stretch things beyond the scope of my comment.

          3. Should allegations of corruption be investigated, no matter which party it benefits?

            Because Obama had no problem with misusing his authority to spy on candidate Trump before the election, and then lie about it…

      3. “I assure you they did not GAF about Hunter Biden’s $50k a month.”

        A liar is going to assure us of facts that aren’t true when the real facts are already known and proven.

        Take note that even his $ amount is under significant question. There are reports of it being around $160,000 a month and the Biden family might have already shared in a couple of million dollars with Hunter’s partner. Additionally there is supposed to be a payoff at a later date of around $20million. None of the numbers are firm but liars will always choose the ones that favor them the most and pretend their answer is proven even when it isn’t.

      4. anon1 says “you need to read a newspaper” to Steve

        here anon1 displays his consistently negative and insulting tone towards other commenters.

        it’s too bad because anon1 is at least showing up every day to provide some stimulating counter-argument.

        too bad that your consistently negative and insulting tone diminishes each conversation into insults
        why would you assume Steve is not well read? do you know steve? I dont.

        of course this is the mentality of someone who accepts the editorial framing implicit within the fake news. so of course you think people who dont agree with you can’t read. how about you question your own premises instead of casting insults on a daily basis?

        now if you say you’ve been insulted too, well perhaps so; but not by steve. so why start it up with him?

        1. kurtz, the everyday ignoring of – if not complete denial of – reality by most of the posters to this board is something I have no patience for. Steve’s question doesn’t indicate someone who just ended a 3 month spiritual sabbatical – and if so, my apology – , but someone who only listens to Fox News. In which case, what would we expect?

          1. you’re just doubling down with another insult. people who don’t agree are not necessarily “denying reality” contrary to your statement. they often have a different perception which is based on different world views culture and experiences.

            see you guys talk about diversity and tolerance but you lack it for those who disagree with your narrow political aims. now that’s a reality you’re a part of which is as dogmatic as any sort of commonly held viewpoint of “Faux news disciples”

            the Democrat party can function at times like a big tent political party of different people coming together for civic interests–

            other times it functions like some kind of secular religion, with saints and heroes and edicts and fatwas and factions and heretics and excommunicates and all the rest

            1. Steve’s question indicated a complete disconnect from reality.

              Diversity and tolerance are for immutable human characteristics, like a low IQ and race, not willful ignorance which you have to try for.

              1. Anon, I don’t know of any statutes that apply to either Biden or Trump. My comment says nothing more. I never said I approved of Trump’s phone call. I would say you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. But then I’d be doing things like you do. So I won’t.

                And I’m perfectly willing to keep an open mind about statutes that were violated, if anyone will ever supply me with some.

                1. Steve, the president is not at this time facing a criminal prosecution but impeachment. He could be accused of violating campaign financing laws which prohibit foreign contributions and extortion. I don’t know if using the power of his office for personal gain is criminal, but I hope so. Surely you would agree that we cannot allow that behavior to become an acceptable norm.

    2. Biden also called the Clinton impeachment a partisan “lynching.” Where was the outcry?

  5. A must read for everyone commenting:

    Adam Schiff Flip-Flopped On Whistleblower Testimony After Reports Of Coordination

    After news broke that Schiff’s staff had secretly worked with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being lodged, Schiff moved to prevent the whistleblower’s testimony.
    By Mollie Hemingway

    Adam Schiff: “Director… Do I have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law?”

    The whistleblower can face criminal charges if he conceals material facts in his complaint. The whistleblower signs a paper telling him this fact.

    1. An additional snippet:

      “The complaint was composed of second-hand claims, full of gossip and rumor, and riddled with false assertions, as indicated by the actual transcript.
      Democrats have dramatically switched from demanding transparency about the whistleblower complaint to hiding depositions, transcripts, and evidence. In contrast, President Trump declassified the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, and documents surrounding the whistleblower complaint.

      Democrats have insisted on holding their inquisition in secret behind closed doors and are now refusing to allow the whistleblower to testify as both the whistleblower and Schiff had claimed to want prior to the news of their coordination.”

      1. Allan – agreed. Democrats know the identity of the “whistleblower” or “activist”, and are keeping that information from Republicans.

        1. Since several of the Republicans have indicated that they thought the WB should be unmasked, that is a necessary precaution.

  6. Turley has made a point of saying the the constitution doesn’t require a full house vote on impeachment.

    “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

    Notice the S at the end of the word representatives. That should indicate to anyone with a room temperature IQ that the phrase refers to the entire House of Representatives — not the speaker, not the chairman of a committee and definitely not a mediocre congressman from Texas.

    The SCOTUS found a right to privacy based on emanations and penumbras. It shouldn’t require any legal hocus pocus to understand that representativeS means the entire House of Representatives.

    Some people have suggested that Turley doesn’t write all of the posts on his blog. The tone of this Bolton post seems to indicate that may be the case. Either that or the Creepy Porn Lawyer actually is a product of his law school instructors.

  7. Sorry, there is nothing in his statement that would interest anyone but cookie-pushers in the Foreign Service (all with law degrees, no doubt). That the Democrats are trying to exploit this to justify an impeachment proceeding is indicative of the fraudulent nature of everything they do.

  8. neoconservatives and the liberal interventionists reside in both political parties.
    They are a single group and are best described as Wilsonian liberals. People like Bill Kristol and Bolton reside in this group and can switch parties whenever they please.
    What amazes me about these “intellectuals” is their complete dismissal of 100 and 200 level undergraduate history courses and a basic lack of understanding about our own government.
    It leads to political objectives for other countries that make no sense.
    I don’t have a doctorate, but I did show up to my undergraduate courses without nursing a hangover.
    Democracy is Constitutional government’s little brother — necessary, but not the bedrock of freedom and liberty. By itself it is harmful. The bedrock for freedom and liberty in the United States is the anti-democratic Bill of Rights. Constitutional society doesn’t come about because of a document. The only reason a Constitutional document is helpful is if it codifies longstanding Constitutional structures that have existed in the society for lengthy periods of time — several decades and usually centuries.
    The only time removing a dictator and holding national elections makes sense is if the country has backslid into dictatorship for a brief period of time after having lengthy Constitutional phases before then — such as 1940s Germany and Japan and by extension Korea. They are not models for areas where little or no Constitutional development has yet to take place.
    The order of government from worst to least worst is: Democracy, Dictatorship, Constitutional Monarchy, Constitutional Democracy. Democracy is worse than dictatorship mainly due to its unstable nature. And the Wilsonian liberals don’t understand that. The United States should be espousing Constitutional development. And it should be noted that all successful Constitutional development took place under unelected rulers who maintained some continuity — rulers who were not particularly enlightened or benevolent.
    This is basic stuff that makes our current misadventures all the more mind-boggling.

    1. i generally agree with that steve but in democracy lies a basic form of social legitimacy. the largest number in any group will often prevail and for the expediency of peace and order, it’s not a bad idea to grant that at least some legitimacy

      that said i am no big fan of it in general, and, it’s mostly just a shibboleth in the mouths of those who overly use it, daily

    2. Bill Kristol has never been a democrat and I seriously doubt Bolton has been either.

      1. Bill Kristal was a Democrat well into his 20s. He worked on the campaign of Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. At some point around 30 years of age he switched parties WITHOUT CHANGING HIS VIEWS ON FOREIGN POLICY AT ALL. At that particular time, the Democratic party just wasn’t that interested in foreign meddling. I’m confident both he and Bolton voted for Clinton.

        1. Bill Kristal was a Democrat well into his 20s.

          1. His father endorsed Richard Nixon in 1972. The intellectual circle around Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were antagonistic to the Carter Administration and congenial to the Reagan Administration. Norman Podhoretz son-in-law and Kristol’s chum Alan Keyes both held subcabinet positions at that time.

          2. Daniel Patrick Moynihan during the period running from 1968 to 1981 was a dissident in the Democratic Party on a menu of issues and was employed in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. Kristol was 23 when he worked on that campaign.

          3. The Moynihan campaign aside, he was not employed as a political aide prior to 1985. All such positions have been with Republican politicians.

  9. From the news coverage, it appears that reporters are allowed to sit in on “closed door hearings”.
    Or could it be that those present really do “just leak what they want the public to hear”?

  10. The problem I have is the Democrats have done things much worse than what is being presented. The Dems have been trying to impeach him since he was elected, ironically they were all gungho to put the Queen of evil on her throne in the White House. And it’s still unbelievable that she has avoided any and all repercussions for her actions.

    1. That is false Larry. The democrats have pointedly avoided impeaching Trump as a losing political gambit, and contrary to what JT has repeatedly wrongly stated here, they did not run on it in 2018.

      Trump forced their hand with his Ukrainian sleaze and they are now left with no choice. Let’s get on with it and do the best we can to dump this jack leg.

      1. Yeah, Larry, there was no talk of impeachment before Trump “forced their hand”.
        Just forget about the impeachment talk going back to Jan.2017 ( or Nov.2016).

        1. Plenty of talk and no action. Nancy was fighting with the AOC wing over it, with most democrats thinking it a political mistake. It was not a promise in the 2018 elections. Somebody tell JT before he claims it again.

          1. Maybe thinking of Article 25 talk which would have been an obvious and valid tact, but you need the Cabinet to go along with it and that wasn’t happening.

  11. When Bolton is the voice of reason in such a incompetent administration, and even he thought POTUS was out of control, there has to be a yuge problem. And JT is pulling off his MO, look over here, and forget the facts that Trump is unfit and incompetent. Hurry JT…post another Hillary article.

  12. Trump being a business man, should know that high turnover at the White House is bad for business.

    1. TJ, it would be better for Trump if he didn’t have to let go of so many people but do you think it would be better for him to keep people that did’t reflect his policies?

  13. I thought Bolton was an interesting choice, however he could be controlled. I agree with Squeeky, Bolton is a Russian asset.

    1. i thought he was a bad choice and you can see that the mustachioed creep is a backstabber.

      throw him in the brig with the rest of the saboteurs, where he can shine their shoes with his mustache when he’s done licking them

  14. This is all BS you’d think he got us into the Korean war oops that was Truman oh then the Viet Nam war oops that Was Kennedy

  15. (music)
    Call him Bolton!
    What kind… of people… call him Bolton?
    Fat kids, skinny kids,,, kids who climb on rocks…
    Rat kids, minny kids, … even kids with chicken pox…
    Say Bolton! Dumb Bolton!
    The dog… kids… like…
    To BITE!

  16. The rest of the story “I found [Taylor] to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy,” Rep John Ratcliffe said. “But again, the mainstream media reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him directly on that. And under [House Intelligence Chairman] Adam Schiff’s rules I can’t tell you what he said, but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.”

    1. That’s false. The State Dept texts released 2 weeks ago show them communicating directly with their Ukrainian counterpart that military aid would be withheld until they announced an investigation publicly. This congressman is a stooge or a fool. But hey, you see it on Fox, you know what you’re getting.

      1. Anon, let’s hear the exact text of the State Department. So far no one else heard anything (and proved the claim) that would prove Trump guilty of an act that he was not permitted to do as POTUS.

        You cannot be trusted. Your reading comprehension skills are impaired so we cannot even trust you to accurately repeat hearsay.

        1. Allan – here is a short-hand version of Arnold’s remarkable life. I deleted the references to the illustrations.

          Benedict Arnold
          WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
          See Article History
          Benedict Arnold, (born January 14, 1741, Norwich, Connecticut [U.S.]—died June 14, 1801, London, England), patriot officer who served the cause of the American Revolution until 1779, when he shifted his allegiance to the British. Thereafter his name became an epithet for traitor in the United States.

          Upon the outbreak of hostilities at Lexington, Massachusetts (April 1775), Arnold volunteered for service and participated with Ethan Allen in the successful colonial attack on British-held Fort Ticonderoga, New York, the following month. That autumn he was appointed by General George Washington to command an expedition to capture Quebec. He marched with 700 men by way of the Maine wilderness, a remarkable feat of woodsmanship and endurance, and, reinforced by General Richard Montgomery, attacked the well-fortified city. The combined assault (December 31, 1775) failed, Montgomery was killed, and Arnold was severely wounded.

          Promoted to the rank of brigadier general, Arnold constructed a flotilla on Lake Champlain and inflicted severe losses on a greatly superior enemy fleet near Valcour Island, New York (October 11, 1776). He returned a hero, but his rash courage and impatient energy had aroused the enmity of several officers. When in February 1777 Congress created five new major generalships, Arnold was passed over in favour of his juniors. Arnold resented this affront, and only Washington’s personal persuasion kept him from resigning.

          Two months later he repelled a British attack on Danbury, Connecticut, and was made a major general, but his seniority was not restored and Arnold felt his honour impugned. Again he tried to resign, but in July he accepted a government order to help stem the British advance into upper New York. He won a victory at Fort Stanwix (now Rome) in August 1777 and commanded advance battalions at the Battle of Saratoga that autumn, fighting brilliantly until seriously wounded. For his services he was restored to his proper relative rank.

          Crippled from his wounds, Arnold was placed in command of Philadelphia (June 1778), where he socialized with families of loyalist sympathies and lived extravagantly. To raise money, he violated several state and military regulations, arousing the suspicions and, finally, the denunciations of Pennsylvania’s supreme executive council. These charges were then referred to Congress, and Arnold asked for an immediate court-martial to clear himself.

          Overview of Benedict Arnold’s service during the American Revolution and his shift in allegiance to become a spy for the British.
          © Civil War Trust (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
          Meanwhile, in April 1779, Arnold married Margaret (Peggy) Shippen, a young woman of loyalist sympathies. Early in May he made secret overtures to British headquarters, and a year later he informed the British of a proposed American invasion of Canada. He later revealed that he expected to obtain the command of West Point, New York, and asked the British for £20,000 for betraying this post. When his British contact, Major John André, was captured by the Americans, Arnold escaped on a British ship, leaving André to be hanged as a spy. The sacrifice of André made Arnold odious to loyalists, and his reputation was further tarnished among his former neighbours when he led a raid on New London, Connecticut, in September 1781.

          At the end of 1781 Arnold went to England. Unable to obtain a regular commission in the British army, he later pursued various business ventures, including land speculation in Canada. Arnold returned to England in 1791, but he left to spend several years privateering in the West Indies before permanently settling in London

          1. Despite Arnold’s skill of leadership in battle and despite everything else being said I wonder why you do not deal in the basic question of his character flaws? I don’t find Arnold odious because he changed sides and was “cowardly” when he let Andre die. What concerns me is his final act as a commander where the men under him would have paid the price.

            That is why I bring up a charcter flaw as to why he should be offered no respect.

            1. arnold had his flaws alright but if he was loyal to the Crown, then it’s only a matter of one’s own perspective to call him a traitor. but, that’s always the difficulty for a snitch!

              I am the sort of person who can see the perspectives of the sides that dont win, like the English crown in our war of independence, or, horror of horrors, even the Confederacy.

              in general, snitches get stitches, and as they say, “dance with the one that brung ya” is wisest

              1. However, Kurtz, he wasn’t loyal to the crown until he didn’t get what he wanted from the Continental Congress. His final act as a commander of the American side is the most distiurbing feature to me. I am talking about character and principle.

                1. liars, snitches, spies, and traitors are powerful adversaries, and force multipliers

                  for those who make a vocation out of lying, spying, and recruiting snitches and traitors– ie, the CIA– we should be very careful about believing whatever they say

            2. Allan – your choice is either you or your wife’s ex bf. Really, what would you do?

              1. Paul, I am referring to an act the man performed directed against his own troops. That has nothing to do with all these other things you bring into the discussion.

                IMO that act is the most dishonerable and unexplainable of all especially in that time period and shows a man not to have character or principles.

                1. Allan – in 1775 everybody is British, July 4, 1776 25% become Rebels 25% Tories and 50% leave me alone. By early 1780 Arnold has decided to become a Tory. He threw his wife’s ex boyfriend under the bus. I would do the same. Remember, it is because Andre gets caught and the plan falls through that Arnold is screwed over by the British, too.

                    1. Allan – you were talking about his mind set and I wanted you to see the mind set of the entire country.

                    2. Paul, I was asking specifically about Arnold and discussed what I believe to be a lack of principles and character. I’ll repeat an earlier comment I made.

                      “Despite Arnold’s skill of leadership in battle and despite everything else being said I wonder why you do not deal in the basic question of his character flaws? I don’t find Arnold odious because he changed sides and was “cowardly” when he let Andre die. What concerns me is his final act as a commander where the men under him would have paid the price.

                      That is why I bring up a charcter flaw as to why he should be offered no respect.”

                    3. Allan – you see it as a character flaw, however studies have shown that only about 25% of the population were Rebels and then only during the summer. They were short-timers. Then they went home to their family and friends. Washington shot a lot of deserters and flogged a lot more.

                      I do not see it as a character flaw. Today we would say he probably went passive-aggressive. That is not a flaw but rather a type of behavior used situationally.

                    4. What don’t you see as a character flaw. You are continuously looking in the wrong direction.

                    5. Allan – let’s define terms. What is a character flaw and give one example other than Benedict Arnold.

                    6. Let’s call it an unsdesrieable imperfection that in this case represents a nonfictional individual.

                      Example: Michael Avenatti.

                    7. Paul, you seem intent on changing the discussion. We are talking about Benedict Arnold not Avenatti. I answered your questions and now you have a definition. Earlier I also discussed Arnold’s actions that made me believe that rather than a pretty wife changing his mind that I felt he had certain characteristics that led to his actions. I asked if you thought there was a vendetta out for Arnold. You said you didn’t know.

                      I then said: ” Arnold was among the best of our officers and he was liked by Washington so one wonders why instead of retiring from the army he changed sides and did it in such a dishonorable fashion.” and you went back to the vendetta idea.

                      I am looking for better answers so I asked if this was due to underlying character issues. I even explained that Arnold could have switched sides without being so dishonorable (considering the times). I also explained that it was his last acts that made me believe he lacked principles and character.

                      Now the ball is in your court. You can either stick to the discussion or change the topic. My discussion is serious because my interests lie in how people react and what makes them tick.

                    8. Allan – Arnold is a hero on many levels. He got screwed over several times by Congress and once by Washington. At some point he had enough and decided to sell his services and West Point to the British. He did think about quitting a couple of times, however did not. Maybe it would have been better if he did. So, Andre gets captured, Washington is on his way, Arnold scoots leaving behind his wife who is going to uncover for him to gain time. Sadly for Arnold, his pay was predicated on the British getting West Point, which they didn’t, so they screwed Arnold, too.

                      As I said before, I think it was payback for being screwed over. That is not a character flaw. That is revenge.

                    9. “As I said before, I think it was payback for being screwed over. That is not a character flaw. That is revenge.”

                      Paul, Arnold had an obligation to his troops at West Point and he was willing to put their lives in jeopardy. The British took care of him even though his plans failed. I don’t think they guaranteed him a life long gift of luxury and praise (he wasn’t honorable). I don’t know what more he would have gotten had the plan worked.

                      His alternate choices were:

                      A clean change to the British side.

                      When one is only after revenge and do not concern themselves with the collateral damage that includes the potential death and injury of friends and coworkers, to me, that represents a severe character flaw.

                      Think of the postal worker or the many others that got revenge.

                    10. Allan – although he was made a Brigadier General the British cut his pay because they did not get West Point.

                    11. Not really on point, but I wonder how much they cut his pay and for how long? Would the total payout differential be good enough to pay for his character flaw. Considering the considerable amount of energy the British paid to being honorable do you think they felt Arnold an honorable person? Andre was paying with his life as Benedict Arnold (understandable) could have exchanged positions with him. The troops loyal to him might have paid with their lives. His friends might have paid with their lives.

                      Do you think that is a good characteristic or a character that demonstrates flaws?

                      Do you think the postal worker that killed others didn’t have a character flaw?

                    12. Allan – they were supposed to pay him 20,000 pound but ended up paying him a little over 6300 pounds and an annual salary of several hundred pounds.

                    13. How did the British determine the amount to finally pay?

                      Arnold acted dishonorably. Honor was something many soldiers and officers found important. Do you think that had anything to do with the paycut? Did anyone make a formal statement in writing or otherwise that could provide us with an exact or near exact statement of what they actually said?

                    14. Allan – as I told you before, the paycut was because the British did not get West Point, which they needed.

                    15. Yes, Paul, but that was not the question. I wonder if a similar thing happened to another general who acted honorably, but the British didn’t get all they wanted, would have been paid more?

                      I am wondering if the British looked at his character. That is the basic question that started a long time ago.

                    16. I think it was payback for being screwed over. That is not a character flaw. That is revenge.

                      So you don’t see committing an act of treason, that if successful would have negatively impacted millions of innocent people, as a character flaw? Hmm, I believe your rationalization is no different than any terrorist; foreign or domestic.

                      Well done.

                    17. OLLY – it is no more a character flaw that turning from British to Rebel. Was that a character flaw?

                    18. I’m not playing your contrarian game Paul. You know damn well you’re wrong in trying to equate the character of rebels fighting against a regime hell-bent on destroying life, liberty and property of innocent people and that of a traitor willing to support that tyrannical regime. And for what, narcissistic revenge?

                    19. OLLY – 75% of the people opposed the Rebels, so that put Arnold in the minority to begin with. It will only be because we ally with the French, get their troops and ships that we are able to finish the war in the favor of the Rebels. Just because I am a contrarian does not mean I am wrong. 😉

                    20. You are wrong when it comes to portraying the character of a traitor to a cause for independence from a tyrant as somehow noble, merely because he chose to side with the tyrant for personal gain.

                      But hey, you will be welcomed into the majority in this country that don’t care what government they get, just as long as they believe they will personally benefit. Yeah, go with that.

                    21. OLLY – I am just saying it is not as black-and-white as people pretend it is.

                    22. ” I am just saying it is not as black-and-white as people pretend it is.”

                      Paul, you are one that is whitewashing the field of discussion.

                    23. Allan – I would posit that I am offering an alternative storyline for Benedict Arnold.

                    24. “an alternative storyline for Benedict Arnold.”

                      OK, Paul. If you wish to make the actions of all people moral equivalents that is OK by me but that leaves us in the world of black and white that you earlier seemed to criticize.

                    25. Paul,
                      When you decouple a culture from first principles, then of course nothing is black or white. Not the right to life, liberty, property or conscience. That is what secular progressives have done to this country.

                    26. OLLY – you have to realize that a country did not exist yet, the war will continue for 3 more years and troops were leaving the field regularly. I think Benedict Arnold was a great hero and military commander who was slighted by the Continental Congress and George Washington. Did he get led around by his wife and her ex boyfriend? Could be. I don’t hold it against him to make the best deal possible. Andre was a spy? Washington had a raft of spies he used throughout the war, so big deal. When spies get caught they are hung or shot.

                    27. ” I think Benedict Arnold was a great hero and military commander who was slighted by the Continental Congress and George Washington.”

                      The entire army was slighted by the Continental Congress. George Washington was reserved but he gave considerable credit to Benedict Arnold. Spying is not the only issue in question.

                    28. You have to realize…

                      That’s the beginning of a moral equivalency argument and it fails. While it’s true Arnold was considered a great hero and military commander, he also betrayed the very cause for which he had earned that reputation. It doesn’t matter what his reasons were. If the war was just and he no longer believed he could serve in that cause, then the honorable (principled) thing to do would be to resign his commission. Instead, he dishonored himself and in an act of treason, attempting to aid the enemy of that just cause.

                      Your argument regarding Arnold came to mind as I watched a bit of the Elijah Cummings memorial service this morning. As you would expect, the speakers were extolling him as a virtuous and honorable servant to this country. While I did not expect anything negative would be said about him during this memorial, the fact is his service wasn’t always virtuous and honorable, if you measure it by our founding first principles. For the record, I could probably count on one hand (military excluded) the number of public servants who would pass that test.

                      And therein lies the rub. As a nation, we’ve lost sight of the rule of law and the rule of men has taken it’s place. Our public servants are not measured by their fidelity to their oath of office. No more proof of that failure will be necessary than the battle to come over the IG report and the Durham (now) criminal investigation.

                    29. OLLY – in Act II of Hamlet, Hamlet catches Claudius praying and alone. He has the perfect chance to kill him. Why doesn’t he? Well, if you ask a Literature major it is because Claudius has just come from Confession and if he kills him now, Claudius will go to heaven. However, if you ask a Theatre major, it is because it is early in the 2nd act and Claudius cannot die until the end of the 5th Act. It is just a structural problem.

                      It depends who you ask and when you ask them when you are talking about Arnold.

                    30. It depends who you ask and when you ask them when you are talking about Arnold.

                      Not if you believe in our founding first principles. On the other hand, if you believe as progressives do, that everything is historically relative, then those old timey first principles had their day, but not today. There is one historical absolute that must be acknowledged; human nature has never changed and will never change. We are headed towards a revolution. Will it be peaceful or hostile? Now that depends.

                    31. its the viewpoint of many snitches that they have an axe to grind. Sammy the Bull Gravano testified in numerous federal trials against Paul Gotti and others about his actvities, he says, because Paul Gotti made no genuine effort at a joint defense, and instead expected Sammy to take the fall for all the beefs on the table at the time. Sammy considered this a violation of the Cosa Nostra rules and for that he excused his own violations of Cosa nostra rules. And of course John Gotti broke a big Cosa nostra rule when he ordered the hit on his own boss Paul Castellano. In which Sammy was the planner and the backup gun. And Gotti had also been flagrantly breaking the cultural rules about laying low and not being a showoff.

                      So I don’t feel to bad for Paul Gotti who was a rulebreaker himself and got hoisted on his own petard
                      Not that I am any fan of Sammy the Bull either. I’m just looking at these things from different perspectives.

                      It’s not always necessary to pick a bad guy. Most of all, I just want to understand human motivations, so I can detect my own adversary’s next moves.

                      The classic explanation for motivations of snitches and spies comes down to MICE

                      Compromise (or coercion)

                  1. when you’re in the business of recruiting sources — it’s all the same sort of exercise.

                    Journalists recruit sources
                    lawyers, police detectives and private investigators recruit sources
                    intelligence operatives recruit sources

                    assessing character is difficult because it requires one to judge value systems. nobody can judge a value system independently of one’s own. there’s a sort of quantum physics style “uncertainty principle” always in play.

                    it is a lot easier to judge motivations and how people do and will respond to different inducements based on their apparent motivations

                    from my vantage point. I can’t tell if Arnold was a person of character, whose loyalty to the Crown over-ruled his loyalty to the American cause, or if he was a base profiteer who leveraged his reputation and trust for pounds of sterling silver. Or was it both in some degree? how can we ever know this far out.

                    I only try to look at figures like Arnold and say, maybe the simple explanation is one that doesn’t truly describe the facts in play at that time. Maybe that makes me a historical revisionist by habit, if not trade. and a revisionist is a dirty word these days. nonetheless in my experience, it pays sometimes to question one’s own premises, and so I’ve made a custom of doing so on a regular basis.

          2. of MICE motivations Allan said:

            “3 of those in excess are indicative of a character flaw.”

            ah but which ones? im curious what you think and why

          1. As I thought Anon you have a library card but not enough skill to comprehend the written word. Where in that text, quote it, do you find non-hearsay proving Trump did something wrong? You can’t. Provide us with questions asked that go futher and make Taylor answer in exact and direct terms. You can’t. Instead you lie and say it is in a transcript but you can’t produce the quotes in context.

            That is precisely what liars do.

      2. here we got with the fox stuff again. I havent watched tv in 2 weeks and the only radio i’ve consumed in that time is NPR. even though it’s biased as hell.

        in that time I’ve read hundreds of news stories from big and small across the internet. like most of us here probably

        get over this pretense anon that all folks who don’t agree with you “dont read newspapers” or are “fox news disciples.” you’re only fooling yourself.

        1. Kurtz the proof is in the pudding. Many of you on the right posting here don’t know the basic facts of events before us, and also claim they purposefully don’t read our best news sources. Well, it shows. 2+2 =4

          I just posted the link to the State Dept texts for Allen, like he didn’t know they’d been public for 2+ weeks. WTF?

          1. What are you talking about Anon? You are the one that talks about these documents but can’t provide anything but Hearsaay and opinion. There is nothing in that document that proves Trump did anything wrong. That you don’t know that proves you don’t comprehend the written word assuming you read the entire document.

            You are just lying again, but I think everyone recognizes that fact.

  17. Is Turley looking forward to another Comey like moment where Comey engages in what I believe to be criminal activity? In the end he leaks out only that information through a third party that he wishes to be seen, much like the Democrats are doing today. There is no concern for the people and that is why Trump will win in 2020.

  18. This is so ridiculous. FFS, read the transcript.

    I am actually looking forward to seeing a Dem become president some day, and watching Turley’s reaction when he/she gets this same treatment. Because the bar has now been set.

Comments are closed.