Bolton’s Bold Move Could Result in Loss Of His Profits Or His Freedom

John_R._BoltonFormer National Security Adviser John Bolton has pledged to release his new tell-all book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” regardless of the lack of pre-publication approval from the Administration. This includes an ABC special this weekend to kick off his release. The move is extremely risky and the law is not on the side of Bolton who could conceivably not only lose his profits but his freedom over such a dispute.

The game of chicken being played between Bolton and the White House grew more intense yesterday when President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr stated that the book contained classified, not just privileged, information. Barr also confirmed that Bolton has not completed the required pre-publication review.

I share the concern over the motivations behind this slow walked review.  The book is obviously going to be very damaging to Trump just before the election.  I have always opposed such tell-all books, particularly those rushing to print during an ongoing administration. It is a betrayal of a president and the understanding of confidentiality that they need to function.  However, the pre-publication review process should not be used for the purpose of protecting a president from embarrassment or political liability.  The problem is that this is not just about privileged information any longer and Bolton agreed to complete this process in his NDA.  To put it simply, that was the price of the ticket to be national security adviser.

That is why the reference to classified information is a game changer.  Courts defer greatly to the Executive Branch on such classifications.  Moreover, as Barr noted, discussions of a president with the heads of foreign nations are ordinarily classified.  Finally, the non-disclosure forms are designed primarily to prevent such disclosures.  I have sign that form many times over the last 30 years due to my work on classified cases.  It is sweeping and unambiguous. You sign away the right to publish pending the review and changes specified in the pre-publication review.

Publication

First and foremost, Bolton could face an injunction to prevent publication. As I have previously noted, I find the claim of classified content surprising because of the failure to pursue an injunction as this book was being printed and stored in warehouses.  If there was clearly classified material in the book, why would the government risk disclosure in millions of copies sitting around in barely secure warehouses?  However, the Administration could certainly move now to enjoin release in light of the statements of Bolton and his publisher, Simon and Schuster.

Profits

NoEasyDayCoverArtSecond,  Bolton could lose his profits.  In 2016, former Navy Seal Matt Bissonnette (writing under the pen name Mark Owen)  wrote “No Easy Day,” about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.  He had to pay the federal government a reported $6.8 million to avoid prosecution. In Snepp v. United States, 44 US 507 (1980), the Court considered a book by Frank Snepp who signed a NDA as part of his employment at the CIA.  He then published a book about CIA activities in South Vietnam without first submitting his manuscript to the Agency for review. A lower court denied Snepp royalties from his book for his failure to secure approval.  The Supreme Court upheld that ruling and started with a discussion that could paint Bolton in the same way as a person who violated the essential trust demanded from such officials:

Snepp’s employment with the CIA involved an extremely high degree of trust. In the opening sentence of the agreement that he signed, Snepp explicitly recognized that he was entering a trust relationship. The trust agreement specifically imposed the obligation not to publish any information relating to the Agency without submitting the information for clearance. Snepp stipulated at trial that — after undertaking this obligation — he had been “assigned to various positions of trust” and that he had been granted “frequent access to classified information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods.” 456 F. Supp. at 178. [Footnote 6] Snepp published his book about CIA activities on the basis of this background and exposure. He deliberately and surreptitiously violated his obligation to submit all material for prepublication review. Thus, he exposed the classified information with which he had been entrusted to the risk of disclosure.

The Court added : “Quite apart from the plain language of the agreement, the nature of Snepp’s duties and his conceded access to confidential sources and materials could establish a trust relationship. Few types of governmental employment involve a higher degree of trust than that reposed in a CIA employee with Snepp’s duties.”  The obvious example of a higher degree of trust would be found in the actual national security adviser himself.

Criminal Liability

There is also the question of potential criminal liability.  This threat is less pronounced but not insignificant.  This would be a knowing release of classified information if Bolton was notified of the content and proceeded to publish anyway.  It is also notable that Barr is known as particularly protective of privileged and classified information.  Bolton did not complete the process and, according to the statements yesterday, he did not comply with the removal of the material.  We have not seen such prosecutions in past cases like the publication of “No Easy Day.” I still view this threat under the Espionage Act to be less acute but he could prove a test case for such application to a NDA violation.

Bolton has a strong lawyer in Chuck Cooper who has a great deal of experience and intestinal fortitude.  However, he should be particularly cautious after yesterday. Now that the President and Attorney General have publicly declared that the book contains classified information, it may be difficult to back off from an aggressive response to Bolton. To make such a public declaration and then do little would be viewed as undermining NDAs in the future.  Bolton has the unfortunate distinction of now being a defining case for the government’s control of such information.

There is a clear menacing element to Barr’s words that the process has not been completed. Bolton may have been given just enough rope to hang himself if he unilaterally cuts off the process.  It seems clear to me that this process was slow walked.  However, there is no guarantee that the process will be completed expeditiously. To the contrary, the process itself is viewed as a speed bump for officials who want to cash in on a tell-all books before the completion of a presidential term.  Complaining about the glacial pace is a bit like complaining about the weather in Washington.

As the earlier book controversy indicates, this will be “No Easy Day” for Bolton.

 

146 thoughts on “Bolton’s Bold Move Could Result in Loss Of His Profits Or His Freedom”

    1. If it is true that Mr. Baker has a COMPLETE copy of Bolton’s book, Mr. Bolton has compromised classified information and is subject to criminal penalties

      Excerpts from the SF 312 which Mr. Bolton signed:

      “I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it,”

      and

      ” I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.”

      Furthermore, excerpts from the Form 4414 which Mr. Bolton signed, are:

      “I hereby agree that I will never divulge anything marked as SCI or that I know to be SCI to anyone who is not authorized to receive it without prior written authorization from the United States Government department or agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) that last authorized my access to SCI. I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to SCI, whether or not I am still employed by or associated with that Department or Agency or a contractor thereof, in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be, or related to or derived from SCI, is considered by such Department or Agency to be SCI. I further understand that I am also obligated by law and regulation not to disclose any classified information or material in an unauthorized fashion.”

      “In consideration of being granted access to SCI and of being assigned or retained in a position of special confidence and trust requiring access to SCI, I hereby agree to submit for security review by the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to such information or material, any writing or other preparation in any form, including a work of fiction, that contains or purports to contain any SCI or description of activities that produce or relate to SCI or that I have reason to believe are derived from SCI, that I contemplate disclosing to any person not authorized to have access to SCI or that I have prepared for public disclosure. I understand and agree that my obligation to submit such preparations for review applies during the course of my access to SCI and thereafter, and I agree to make any required submissions prior to discussing the preparation with, or showing it to, anyone who is not authorized to have access to SCI. I further agree that I will not disclose the contents of such preparation with, or show it to, anyone who is not authorized to have access to SCI until I have received written authorization from the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to SCI that such
      disclosure is permitted.
      “I understand that the purpose of the review described in paragraph 4 is to give the United States a reasonable opportunity to determine whether the preparation submitted pursuant to paragraph 4 sets forth any SCI. I further understand that the Department or Agency to which I have made a submission will act upon it, coordinating within the Intelligence Community when appropriate, and make a response to me within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 working days from date of receipt.

      “I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI and removal from a position of special confidence and trust requiring such access, as well as the termination of my employment or other relationships with any Department or Agency that provides me with access to SCI. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, and of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.”

      Please remember that Mr. Bolton is an attorney with a JD from Yale University.
      Copies of these documents, signed by Mr. Bolton, can be found in Exhibit A of UNiTED STATES OF AMERICA v. BOLTON 1:20-cv-01580 District Of Columbia District Court.

      1. LOL.

        First of all, if you were listening to / reading today’s news, you’d know that lots of people now have complete copies of the book. It’s totally standard for publishers to distribute pre-publication copies of books for review.

        And your claim — “If it is true that Mr. Baker has a COMPLETE copy of Bolton’s book, Mr. Bolton has compromised classified information” — assumes that there’s classified info in the book. Is there actually classified material in the book? Neither of us knows.

        If the DOJ thinks they have evidence to press charges against Bolton, nothing is stopping them. But so far, they haven’t. They did file an emergency TRO/PI motion today: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17254525/3/united-states-v-bolton/

        I’m no fan of Bolton’s. If he were actually a patriot, he would have testified when he was asked to testify by the House.

  1. Trump’s Suit To Stop Bolton Book Could Be Legally Flawed

    Suit Ignores The Publisher Which Has Already Distributed Book

    The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday asking a federal judge to order former White House national security adviser John Bolton to stop the release of his book, asserting that his much-anticipated memoir contains classified material.

    The move sets up a legal showdown between President Trump and the longtime conservative foreign policy hand, who alleges in his book that the president committed “Ukraine-like transgressions” in a number of foreign policy decisions, according to his publisher.

    But the Trump administration stopped short of seeking a court order against Bolton’s publisher to stop the distribution of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” which is due to go on sale June 23 and has already been shipped across the country.

    Instead, the civil suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, accuses Bolton of breach of contract by violating his nondisclosure agreement and asks the court to order him “to instruct or request his publisher, insofar as he has the authority to do so, to further delay the release date.”

    The suit also asks the court to prohibit him from disclosing any information in the book without written permission from the administration and from releasing it in any form, and to order him to notify his publisher that he did not complete the prepublication review process.

    In addition, the Justice Department asked the court to order Bolton “to take any and all available steps to retrieve and dispose of any copies of ‘The Room Where it Happened’ that may be in the possession of any third party in a manner acceptable to the United States.”

    Finally, it asks the court to follow a step taken in previous cases involving unauthorized disclosures of classified information by former government officials: establishing a trust that would direct any profits from the book to the U.S. Treasury.

    Charles Cooper, Bolton’s attorney, said, “We are reviewing the government complaint and will respond in due course.”

    Cooper has said that his client’s book does not contain any classified material and that Bolton has worked with the National Security Council since December to vet the manuscript. Bolton’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, has said the former national security adviser spent months doing revisions at the request of the White House.

    In a letter sent to the White House on June 10, Cooper wrote that Bolton has no authority to stop the distribution of the book, which he noted had already been printed and shipped around the country, according to a copy attached as an exhibit in the Justice Department suit.

    Simon & Schuster said in a statement Tuesday night that the Justice Department action “is nothing more than the latest in a long running series of efforts by the Administration to quash publication of a book it deems unflattering to the President.”

    Legal experts said it was notable that the Justice Department did not file a suit against Simon & Schuster, pointing out that courts are averse to preemptively blocking publication of books, particularly those that deal with political speech.

    Rather, in going directly after Bolton, the Trump administration appears to be focused on a different strategy, experts said: using financial pressure to discourage him from disclosing sensitive information without government permission.

    Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, called the complaint “strategically ambiguous about what relief the government is seeking, and against whom.”

    While the government is clearly seeking a court order asking Bolton to block publication of the book, Jaffer noted, “it’s not clear that Bolton is in a position to provide it.”

    Stephen Gillers, a First Amendment law expert at New York University, said that the odd language used by the government in its request for court intervention was likely a strategy designed to apply pressure on both the publisher and Bolton.

    “The U.S. has no chance of an injunction against the publisher, which did not sign the NDA,” Gillers said. “It wants the publisher to get the court-ordered notice so that, if it publishes anyway, the U.S. will have some basis then to seek civil or criminal sanctions against it.”

    Trump hinted Monday that he would seek to stop the release of the book, telling reporters that it was “highly inappropriate” for Bolton to write the memoir.

    “I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified,” he said. “So that would mean that, if he wrote a book and if the book gets out, he’s broken the law and I would think that he would have criminal problems. I hope so.”

    Edited From: “Justice Department Asks The Court To Order Bolton To Stop The Release Of His Book”

    This Evening’s Washington Post

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      It appears that Bolton never signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Trump. Yet Trump expects attendees to his upcoming rally in Tulsa to sign Non-Disclosures promising they will not sue Trump’s campaign if they are taken with the virus. That should scare off anyone with common sense! Here Thomas Friedman comments in today’s New York Times:
      ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

      And yet we have a president who, instead of wearing a mask, turns defiance of mask-wearing into a heroic act of defiance against liberals; who forces 1,100 West Point cadets to travel back to campus, and quarantine for two weeks, so he can get a photo op addressing their graduation; who is planning a mass rally in Tulsa, Okla., on Saturday — where the most notable precaution is that you sign a legal disclaimer that you “voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to Covid-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President Inc.” liable — and who hails governors who open bars and restaurants for people to crowd together.

      Edited From: “Is Trump Trying To Spread Covid 19?”

      Today’s New York Times

      1. First of all, let me comment on your source: Mr. Friedman is an “opinion columnist” and his “article” is clearly labelled “OPINION.” You do know, of course, that an opinion is nothing more than a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. It is a personal belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

        In regard to “It appears that Bolton never signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Trump,” I draw you attention to Case 1:20-cv-01580, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Pay particular attention to paragraphs 10 and the forms in Exhibit A.

        The Trump campaign has not required “attendees to his upcoming rally in Tulsa to sign Non-Disclosures…” First of all, it it obvious to me that you have no idea what is contained in the Non-Disclosure agreement regarding access to classified material and the liability disclaimer required to alreceive tickets to the rally, Go to your local theme park. Near the entrance pr on the ticket you purchase is most likely a liability disclaimer saying you will not hold the park liable for certain actions and event. By you entering the park, you consent to the park’s liability disclaimer.

        Your comment of agreement with the Trump liability disclaimer “should scare off anyone with common sense” is, like Mr. Friedman, nothing more than your opinion. Amazing how you can degrade people with a, simply put, moronic comment.

        Simply put, try doing some “homework.”

          1. …And then Paint Chips agonizes over people responding in a similar fashion towards him. Paint Chips cannot take what he throws and that is why he has been put in the West Hollywood nail salon.

        1. Simply put, try doing some “homework.”

          TS, he earned the name Paint Chips for a reason. It’s not that he lacks the resources to do the homework. Like a trained chimp, he accesses the internet and goes directly to the sources that earn him a banana…confirm his bias. He copies/pastes and then does his “Regarding above” follow up. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

  2. No surprise here.

    Americans are fatter, wealthier, more independent (read: solo) and drunk with pride.

    Americans are the unhappiest they’ve been in 50 years

    https://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/covid-response-tracking-study.aspx

    In an ongoing study funded by the National Science Foundation, NORC at the University of Chicago is conducting a nationally representative longitudinal study to understand Americans’ beliefs, mental health, and outlook before, during and after the coronavirus outbreak.

    The surveys are being conducted online and over the phone in English and Spanish with 2,000 respondents using AmeriSpeak— NORC’s probability-based panel. Using innovative methods, this study compares current beliefs to Americans’ responses to prior national tragedies as well as nearly 50 years of prior data collected in the General Social Survey

    Findings from the first wave of 2020 data suggest that the unique and unprecedented coronavirus crisis is having a negative impact on the well-being of Americans and the public is reacting differently than after other national tragedies.

    The results from the first survey and the historical context reveals a unique impact of the outbreak: an all-time low in people saying they are very happy combined with an all-time high in people saying they are satisfied with their family’s financial situation. Finally, exposure to the coronavirus either personally or geographically in a highly-impacted area is linked with greater feelings of loneliness and other negative emotional states.

  3. OTHER BOOKS IN THE NEWS:

    Trump’s Niece Set To Release Book On Trump Family Intrigues

    It was a rare admission when President Trump told The Washington Post last year that he regretted the way he treated his older brother, Fred Jr., who died of alcoholism. But he insisted that a subsequent financial feud with his late brother’s children had been settled amicably, saying, “We all get along.”

    Now, however, Trump’s niece — the daughter of Fred Jr. — has written a book slated to be published in July that could explode the image of a unified Trump family.

    In a description of the book posted on Amazon late Monday night, Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist, is said to describe “a nightmare of traumas, destructive relationships, and a tragic combination of neglect and abuse. She explains how specific events and general family patterns created the damaged man who currently occupies the Oval Office, including the strange and harmful relationship between Fred Trump and his two oldest sons, Fred Jr. and Donald.”

    Edited from: “President Trump Says His Family Is United. A Niece’s Book Could Explode That Myth”

    The Washington Post, 6/15/20

  4. New Book On Trump Family Sheds Light On Trump’s Sister

    And Why She Retired As A Federal Judge

    Explanation: Donald Trump’s niece Mary, daughter of Trump’s deceased older brother Fred Jr., has written a new book about the Trump family. Press reports indicate that Mary was a primary source of information The New York Times used in an October of 2018 series of stories on the Trump family wealth. That series detailed a number of schemes used by the Trump’s to avoid taxes over the decades; especially taxes pertaining the estate of Trump’s father, Fred Sr. In reading about the new book, I stumbled upon this very interesting story that had escaped my notice earlier.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    President Trump’s older sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, has retired as a federal appellate judge, ending an investigation into whether she violated judicial conduct rules by participating in fraudulent tax schemes with her siblings.

    The court inquiry stemmed from complaints filed last October, after an investigation by The New York Times found that the Trumps had engaged in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the inherited wealth of Mr. Trump and his siblings. Judge Barry not only benefited financially from most of those tax schemes, The Times found; she was also in a position to influence the actions taken by her family.

    Judge Barry, now 82, has not heard cases in more than two years but was still listed as an inactive senior judge, one step short of full retirement. In a letter dated Feb. 1, a court official notified the four individuals who had filed the complaints that the investigation was “receiving the full attention” of a judicial conduct council. Ten days later, Judge Barry filed her retirement papers.

    The status change rendered the investigation moot, since retired judges are not subject to the conduct rules. The people who filed the complaints were notified last week that the matter had been dropped without a finding on the merits of the allegations. The decision has not yet been made public, but copies were provided to The Times by two of the complainants. Both are involved in the legal profession.

    The Times investigation focused on how the profits and ownership of the real estate empire built by the president’s father, Fred C. Trump, were transferred to Donald J. Trump and his siblings, often in ways designed to dodge gift and estate taxes.

    A lawyer for the president, Charles J. Harder, said last fall, “The New York Times’s allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100 percent false, and highly defamatory.”

    Judge Barry had been a co-owner of a shell company — All County Building Supply & Maintenance — created by the family to siphon cash from their father’s empire by marking up purchases already made by his employees, The Times investigation found. Judge Barry, her siblings and a cousin split the markup, free of gift and estate taxes, which at the time were levied at a much higher rate than income taxes.

    By the end of 1997, Donald Trump and his siblings owned nearly all of Fred Trump’s empire, free and clear of estate taxes. How did they do it? A special type of trust with a clunky acronym: GRAT, short for grantor-retained annuity trust. It is one of the tax code’s great gifts to the ultrawealthy. GRAT: a trust designed to pass wealth between generations.

    In 1995, Donald Trump and his siblings began to take ownership of most of their father’s real estate empire, while avoiding hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. They did so by creating two Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts, also known as GRATs. One for dad, and one for mom. Taxes are paid based on the final value of the GRAT, and this gave the Trumps every incentive to lowball the value of the assets.

    The family also used the padded invoices to justify higher rent increases in rent-regulated buildings, artificially inflating the rents of thousands of tenants. Former prosecutors told The Times that if the authorities had discovered at the time how the Trumps were using All County, their actions would have warranted a criminal investigation for defrauding tenants, tax fraud and filing false documents.

    Similarly, Judge Barry benefited from the gross undervaluation of her father’s properties when she and her siblings took ownership of them through a trust, sparing them from paying tens of millions of dollars in taxes, The Times found. For years, she attended regular briefings at her brother’s offices in Trump Tower to hear updates on the real estate portfolio and to collect her share of the profits. When the siblings sold off their father’s empire, between 2004 and 2006, her share of the windfall was $182.5 million, The Times found.

    Judge Barry was nominated to the Federal District Court in New Jersey by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, after several years as a federal prosecutor. She was elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by President Bill Clinton in 1999.

    In February 2017, shortly after her brother’s inauguration, she notified the court that she would stop hearing cases and give up her staff and chambers. She was then considered a senior inactive judge, a status that did not entitle her to salary increases, but that left her still subject to conduct inquiries. Judge Barry did not announce a reason for the change at the time.

    Edited From: “Retiring As A Judge, Trump’s Sister Ends Court’s Inquiry Into Her Role In Tax Dodges”

    The New York Times, 4/10/19

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      Anyone wanting to know why Trump absolutely will not show his tax returns might find important clues in this article.

      1. waiting with baited breath Peter. In the meantime, consider copying and pasting discredited sources like NYTimes and WaPo to earn your pay, Paintchips…or is it Seth, John, Enoch, Prince Planet, Mistress Madame, Crazed Crystal Meth addict, WeHo Hoe or….

        Trolling for dollars is sad

        1. Anonymous, only those deep within the rightwing bubble refer to NYT as a ‘discredited source’.

          And I should use this moment to point out that Fox News was very recently discredited over it’s coverage of that ‘Chaz’ zone in Seattle. It seems that Fox tried to edit in tape that had nothing to do with Seattle just to make the Chaz site look more chaotic than it is.

          So if you want to talk about ‘discredited sources’, let’s start with Fox.

            1. I wouldn’t trust any news organization but if we have to compare Fox to the NYT there is no question Fox shines like a diamond and the NYT looks like a piece of sh1t. Also understand that when you complain about Fox the height of your anger is at the prime time shows. A bunch of the other shows are not particularly conservative and I believe these errors came from the Fox website. I have never read the fox website except perhaps in a Google search so I don’t even know which side of the aisle it stands with.

          1. Peter – I have watched several insider videos on CHAZ/CHOP and those people are nuts. However, I did find out they were planting those gardens on pizza boxes. They are eating a lot of pizza in there. 🙂

            They are also armed and dangerous. Mostly because the people who are armed do not have discipline. BTW, did you know that Raz of CHAZ, the Warlord was handing out an automatic weapon to some “kid” who didn’t look like he had ever fired a weapon in his life. Not a good look.

            1. Paul, I have no connection to ANTIFA and no sympathy for looters. But I have read that Fox coverage of Seattle is highly distorted. And here I posted coverage from The Seattle Times. They should know their own city.

                1. yeah i saw some videos of the Chaz from inside on twitter. garbage and grafitti everywhere, bullies running amuck. the CHAZ is a circus freak sideshow in this drama anyways

                  it is a destabilization campaign aimed at tanking Donald Trump. if and when he is gone, and a Democrat takes over, the police will be back in business very fast, you can be sure of that.

                  BLM are paid by the likes of Geo Soros, this is factual. he is not the only financier, but he is the whale. The whales who give the big money call the shots, not all the little tiny donors who kick in $20 to some goofball’s patreon.

                  the aim of this is to de-escalate the economic war with the PRC, by unhorsing Trump, and secondly, to put in place more malleable and flexible Democrat national leadership who is always more to Wall Street’s liking since the Clintons came to town. Always.

                  Somehow, the Democrats have been great at fooling people into thinking that they were not actually the party of global billionaire oligarchy, when that is so obviously the case.

                  I realize a lot of folks actually understand that, which is why they are so vocal about hating Trump. They are social climbers and can’t afford to have an opinion that might offend their bosses. Lickspittles!

                2. Peter – there is video of the “confiscation” of the flag. It was actually theft. Someone ran up behind her, grabbed it and ran on while others prevented her from getting her flag back. And they picked on the woman, not the man.

                  They also do not mention the armed John Brown Gun Club that is running around in there. They have an interrogation tent, maybe more than one. Raz the Warlord is armed and has armed minions, who are not part of the John Brown Gun Club.

                  Basically, WaPo did a puff piece.

              1. Peter – do you think a liberal newspaper is going to honestly look at it. Check out Andy Ngo video from CHAZ and this link which is a daytime walk through.

                1. Paul, again, I don’t condone ‘any’ of this. But this video doesn’t look that disturbing. It doesn’t appear to be the den of chaos Fox News described.

      2. “Similarly, Judge Barry benefited from the gross undervaluation of her father’s properties when she and her siblings took ownership of them through a trust, sparing them from paying tens of millions of dollars in taxes, The Times found.”

        I personally discredit this rehashed old theme from the NYT which fools its readers like you but they cant fool me. the use of fractional discounts in federal estate tax planning was well within the law at the time and even now to a lesser degree. FLPs, I won’t bother to explain before, you don’t care about the truth. you pretend what is editorial is actually journalism on a daily basis, and talk down to people who you assume don’t know better.

        I explained it before, and you just want to flog the same old same old. This book will be more gossip but not more new information. but feel free to sell copy for your masters. just dont expect people to believe it with your high falutin tone

        1. Kurtz, the truth is Trump inherited a lot more from his dad than he would ever admit. That bullsh_t myth about Trump getting started on only a million is absolute nonsense.

          1. His father died in 1999, Peter. He was fabulously wealthy a decade and a half before that.

    2. Newsflash, these are classic tax avoidance (as opposed to tax evasive) tactics used by pretty much any and every weatlhy family on the planet. They are methods that have been codified into the U.S. tax laws. In other words, yawn.

      As to Bolton and his book, John Solomon (who knows Bolton) said that the two men once sat together on a plane and Bolton lamented to Solomon how wrong it was for government employees to leave their positions and write gossip tell-all books in revenge as their policy advice was no longer wanted. How sad it is to end one’s career and become exactly what you once despised.

      1. I’m not sure why any employee of the federal government should stand to profit off of the insider information they consider to be a violation of law, that they never reported. Isn’t this precisely why the Whistleblower Protection Act exists?

    1. stupid? no, that’s intentional. you can think what you like.

      i wonder how many complaints you have drafted. really, the arrogance from you guys is amazing.

  5. Interesting to see all these public people with troubling mental illness exposing themselves in public.

    The word I’ve heard is there are pictures of him as he is/was in some sort of weird sex parties.

    I always believed he was a creep & wondered why Trump would even consider that nut job.

    1. You got the names in wrong order. Rest appears fine – “nut job” and “weird sex parties” pretty much sums up your dear leader.

  6. The book is obviously going to be very damaging to Trump just before the election.

    While it’s likely to be an attempt to be very damaging to Trump, it won’t move the needle on those that oppose this President and it will very likely energize his base. The fallout from Durham’s investigation will also provide a necessary context for the political environment President Trump had to endure while negotiating relationships inside and outside of his administration.

  7. So, Prof Turley, what is the reason that you believe Barr “slow-walked” the vetting of Bolton’s book? Clearly, it is so that no court could get Bolton’s appeal from the Trump administration’s veto of the book’s publication before the election.

    What I don’t get, Prof Turley, is your apparent continuing belief that Barr is an honorable man. As Barr, it is clear – and you know it – is manipulating the vetting process to serve Trump’s political goals, isn’t it about time that you quit supporting Barr?

    1. The vetting would not have been done by the Department of Justice. (I think it’s an office in the NSC).

        1. But Barr is in this delay process up to his elbows.

          You really need to apply some critical distance from your sources, if you’re at all capable.

            1. Since they don’t work there and use anonymous sources (which may not exist), no, I’m not interested. No serious person is.

            2. While we’re at it, even the article you link to makes no claim that Barr or his staff are vetting the book.

        2. Your complaint is that Barr is honorable and extremely precise. That irks you because Barr doesn’t permit the leftist mindset to twist words around so they can make a case that is not in good faith. Good for Barr. Bad for the scum that wants Barr to be less precise.

          I quote: “We can’t call Barr’s “unprecedented” claim false, since he added so many qualifiers “

          I’ll also add that IMO no one in authority working for the President should be permitted to cash in either by writing a book during the President’s tenure in office or lobbying for perhaps 5 years.

          As far as what is classified I will also quote from your article.

          “The President is the authority over what is classified and not; he is allowed to declare, even after the fact, that a conversation is classified.”

          Your actual complaint is that you don’t like honesty or honor.

        3. Hmm, honor is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder

          Maybe his honor is his loyalty. lol

          j/k. trolling ya guys!

  8. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) can wallow in the insidious treason and duplicity of a liar, backstabber, snitch, turncoat and traitor. Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver, Judas. When the communists take power, they will purge you all and laugh at your interment. John Bolton betrayed President Trump and, more importantly, John Bolton betrayed the Constitution and John Bolton betrayed the United States of America. May God have mercy on your soul.

Leave a Reply