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.


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.


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. Draft Dodged who never saw a war he didn’t like, except the one he wouldn’t serve in.

    1. He did nothing of the kind. He enlisted in the National Guard, something a six digit population did every year and a perfectly regular way to do your military service. The only legitimate use of the term ‘draft dodger’ would be for the use of deception or influence to avoid military service. An analogue would be to use deception or influence to obtain a re-assignment in the service. The only examples of draft dodging in presidential politics in 50-odd years were Bernie Sanders and his lawyer running out the clock on his eligibility during the period running from 1964-67 (pressing a bogus claim for conscientious objector status) and Bill Clinton’s maneuvers to shirk his ROTC service obligations in 1969. The only secure case of strings being pulled for reassignment was Pat Robertson’s transfer during the Korean War in 1951. Special provision was made for Al Gore Jr in VietNam in 1970, but no evidence has emerged that he or his father knew anything about it at the time. John Kerry’s transfer stateside in 1969 was a consequence of taking every possible advantage of bureaucratic standards and practices then in effect, btw.

      1. Trump did not serve in the National Guard I served in Vietnam Nam and have nothing but contempt for Trump

        1. Right. “Absurd” is getting ever more so. I have searched thoroughly and have found no evidence that Trump served in any military capacity – except a military prep school.

          1. In introduction to reading comprehension, you will learn that the character string “John Bolton” is not a reference to Trump.

        2. Out of curiosity, do you also have contempt for President’s Clinton and Obama, or any of the other President’s that did not serve in the military?

        3. Vinny, thanks for your service.

          Trump has been working on getting troops home instead of putting them in harms way. Maybe if he were there during Vietnam we both would have lost a lot less friends. I note that a lot of the generals that have been putting our young soldiers in danger with crazy combat rules never ended up winning those wars for America. I’ll bet they are quite disappointed that Trump relies more on people that understand soft power than those that rely on the lives of our children.

        4. The topic of the article is John Bolton.

          Trump was granted an ordinary student deferment in 1964, at a time when there weren’t many combat troops in VietNam. It was renewed three times. In 1968, he was granted an ordinary I-Y deferment. About 12% of each birth cohort were granted these in a typical year at that time. The military can be oddly exacting about certain minor defects. I knew a man awarded one for eczema on his feet. Other people were awarded these for being overweight, for being underweight, for bad eyesight, pilonidal cysts, hernias. You could be called in for another physical in as little as 90 days. Eighteen months later, they instituted the draft lottery. Trump’s number was high enough that he wasn’t called. This wasn’t unusual, either. About 46% of those born between the beginning of 1943 and the end of 1950 who had not yet served were excused as a consequence of that lottery. John Bolton’s lottery number was low enough that he would have been called, but he’d already enlisted.

          And I really don’t care what biographical fictions you try to retail here.

        5. While we’re at it, among those who haven’t served in the military (from among those born prior to 1954) are Gary Hart (perpetual student, in an era when graduate school deferments were offered), Jesse Jackson (student deferment, ministerial exception), Bill Clinton (manipulated a colonel into helping him shirk ROTC service obligations), Jerry Brown (see Gary Hart), Paul Tsongas (holed up in the Peace Corps), Bill Bradley (no explanation offered AFAIK), Howard Dean (student deferment, medical disqualification), and Bernie Sanders (again, hired a draft lawyer to press a bogus claim for CO status, ran out the clock).

          Since partisan Democrats maintained that the National Guard service of Dan Quayle was some sort of cheat (while not deigning to notice that Michael Dukakis rode out the Korean War with a student deferment). Maybe you could tell us your thoughts on Jimmy Carter spending the 2d World War at Annapolis and Richard Gephardt’s years in the National Guard.

        6. i hear this a lot from people that they served in Vietnam and I’ve heard it from some people whose DD 214s said otherwise

          i know some people who did serve and it’s the last thing they every bring up in conversation. you brought it out right away. just making the observation

  2. The only questions are Did he submit the manuscript for vetting as required by law or did he not submit it for vetting. Followed by was it approved for publication after being checked for leaks or not. the rest is just media propaganda and meaningless.

    1. For anyone who question Mr. Bolton’s right to publish a book about his service to the U.S. government, I suggest they read the “CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT” and the “SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT” Mr. Bolton was required to sign prior to being given access to classified information. Pay particular attention to paragraph three of the first document and paragraph four of the second.

  3. I suspect that Professor Turley would support an injunction against Trumps niece from publishing a very negative book on the Donald To quote the immortal Nat Hentoff It is free speech foe me and not for theeWhy is this not a prior restraint

  4. Turley keeps trying to make the case that Barr and Trump are legitimately serving as AG and POTUS, and that they have the best interests of the American people at heart in all they do. They aren’t. For instance: “It is also notable that Barr is known as particularly protective of privileged and classified information.” No, Barr is “particularly protective” of the election cheater for whom he acts as a fixer. He has proven he will bold-face lie to the American people to make his hero look good, like the deceitful pre-publication “summary” of the Mueller Report. Everyone knows that approval is being slow-walked to protect Trump from further disclosures as to his illegal and immoral conduct and his absolute incompetence. I very seriously doubt there is any classified or even privileged material in the book, because Bolton isn’t stupid. This is why no injunction.

  5. His lawyer already admitted in an Op-Ed that he’d transmitted the manuscript to the reviewers himself. IOW, Bolton disclosed the classified information to his attorney. If the book has been printed up, the classified information has been disclosed to the editors and printers as well.

    Trump or his patronage vetters elected to trust the Republican establishment. That got them Rod Rosenstein, Christopher Wray, the scam artist DNI, and Bolton.

      give him due process and punishment accordingly

      CRUSH THE MUTINY AS WELL…..Trump is the civilian head of government and armed forces. There are laws and discipline which require obedience to this legitimate authority.


    Conservative lawyer sues Chinese government over coronavirus outbreak

    By Melissa Quinn

    March 19, 2020 / 9:30 AM / CBS News

    Washington — A conservative lawyer has filed a class-action lawsuit against China for the coronavirus pandemic, [stating] the Chinese government developed the virus as an illegal biological weapon to unleash on the world.

    Lawyer Larry Klayman and his group Freedom Watch filed the complaint in federal court in Texas seeking at least $20 trillion from the Chinese government because of its “callous and reckless indifference and malicious acts.”

  7. Why can’t Bolton have both? Lose any profits(people buy that?) and his freedom. He deserves to have it all.

  8. This is on Trump. Time and time again he appoints these type of back biters and ends up firing them when they betray him. That works in business but not so much in politics.

  9. Trump had a conversation with a woman who worked at a cathouse. She posted some of his requests online and they got deleted by some government agent from the CIA which has a computer eraser. She may go to Cuba and write a book about things including Trump’s.

  10. Good:

    Charlie Savage: “BREAKING: Two current DOJ career prosecutors – including Aaron Zelinsky of the Mueller team, 1 of the 4 who quit the Roger Stone case – have agreed to testify under subpoena next week before the Judiciary Committee re DOJ politicization. w/ @Schwartzesque” (this links to the NYT story about it)

  11. What should really worry trump is the very idea that Bolton may simply not care about the threats. He worked for trump and surely he understood how he issues hollow threats.

    Bolton seems to be counting on trump’s ire to fuel the speculation and ultimately could give congress a new reason to investigate. He could have waited for the right moment to inflict big damage to trump’s re-election chances. Trump is all about hitting back. He might have just dissed the wrong guy this time.

    1. For anyone who question Mr. Bolton’s right to publish a book about his service to the U.S. government, I suggest they read the “CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT” and the “SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT” Mr. Bolton was required to sign prior to being given access to classified information. Pay particular attention to paragraph three of the first document and paragraph four of the second.

  12. There is only one solution to this, a leak. Bolton has to take a leak. He will still make tons of money as he traipses around the talk show circuit and gives speeches. He can blame others and stay out of jail. It’s all about using the obfuscation tool. It’s a lawyer thing.

    1. every future adminstration is endangered by these tell all books and this one is flaunting the law about classified information

      enjoin the publication and charge bolton for his violation of laws….and anyone in uniform who mutinies gets charged too

      it’s past time for Trump to firmly grab the reins or the US can face a constitutional crisis from which it might never recover

  13. It appears to me that Democrats are salivating over anyone who will confirm their bias against Trump, and Reality in general. Comey was despised by them when he spoke the truth about Hillary, and then raised to Sainthood when Trump fired him. Same now with Bolton who they despised when he lead the charge (from his desk) into various military operations, but now they wait with bated breath for words.

    This is a sign of some sort of mental illness, akin to that expressed by the Berkeley History Department above. Several commenters here seem particularly disturbed to the point of obsession, and I wonder if they have missed their meds? I also wonder if the word, “committed,” is a Freudian slip.

    1. I have always, and still continue, to think of Bolton as pure slime dog. That’s been my opinion all along. However, I’m beyond interested to see what he has to say.

      1. bolton is a warmonger and a cretin, i always believed it so, i said this was a “YUUUUGE” mistake for trump and lo and behold it was

        civilian leadership of the military is in danger, constant compromise of national security information is in danger, and the integrity of the chain of command is in danger— dangers that will outlive trump– and future Democrat leadership will face all the same problems yet again

        this country needs to bring the corporate establishment factions in finance and mass media into line with the national interests. now or never i suspect.

  14. Under normal circumstances JT would be right. But we do have a thing called the First Amendment. While it does not protect classified information, it does protect everything else. Preventing a politically damaging book is not a valid reason to prevent publication. While courts do take a very deferential role to classified information, I don’t think they will be fooled in this case. Trump himself has said that all discussions with the president are classified, which is an obvious attempt to stifle criticism. As long as Bolton is smart and leaves out legitimately classified info he will be ok. It is well established that politically damaging info by itself is not eligible to be classified.

  15. Interesting conundrum, Professor. While not governmental, I often have to sign NDA’s for work. Suffice it to say people who make you sign them are rather intent on prosecuting those who break them as we know…

    The Snepp analogy also makes me think of Phillip Agee’s memoir of his time working in the CIA. Particularly the experience where he, as the new guy and low man on the totem pole at the Quito station in Ecuador, had to baby sit the general installed as president in an American backed coup as that president drunkenly shot a waiter in the head in a restaurant and then having to whisk the president out and hide him from press exposure. The experience set off a protracted disenchantment process that converted a true cold warrior into being a person who sincerly doubted the ‘ends justify the means’ at any cost.

    Obviously the relating of this experience demolished his NDA status. And his naming of names led to actual murders of American intelligence personel as well as destroying whatever means and methods of intelligence gathering he’d been involved with around the world. But did he relate truths the world had to know? I’m going to vote yes on that while also being sensitive to the fact he literally destroyed lives in the telling.

    Some things are much bigger than the restraints put in place to protect questionable motives.

    1. there are NDAs that are weak as baby urine and then there are those which are strong as horse piss. i suspect national security NDAs are on the level of triple crown juiced up stallion water.

  16. Bolton is a Ultra Neo Con who is upset with Trump’s moves to get out of conflicts that he and other Neo Con’s want and support.

    AG Barr is not kidding.

    It would be great to see the Neo Con Bolton put in his place along with the other Neo Cons and Deep State Elites.

    Pres Trump has a very good record in the courts. Bolton and his high price Deep State Elite Lawyer are in Trouble.

    I say strip Bolton of his book, profits and if he violated the law and agreements let him be punished with maximum fines, financial hardship, and Jaiil.

    1. “Pres Trump has a very good record in the courts.”


      Just yesterday, Steve Vladeck (UT Austin law prof., has argued before SCOTUS) tweeted:
      “Three big losses for the Trump administration at #SCOTUS today:
      “1) Cert. denied in its challenge to CA sanctuary laws;
      “2) Cert. denied in Second Amendment cases it supported; and
      “3) Stinging loss in #LGBT / Title VII case in which it was (controversially) on the other side.”

      I wonder what Trump’s total record of court wins and losses is (but I don’t care enough to chase down the statistics).

      1. You are conflating US law with Trump’s private legal situation. That was an error. The merits of American law as decided or nont decided yesterday is not germane to this discussion.

        1. The claim I was responding to was about “Pres Trump” and references Bolton and Barr. How strange that you interpret it as being about “Trump’s private legal situation.”

  17. Bolton could have and should have agreed to testify before the House when he was asked to testify voluntarily last fall (a copy of the letter asking him to testify is here: ), just like other former Executive Branch employees (e.g., Fiona Hill) voluntarily testified, but sometimes declined to answer specific questions because of executive privilege.

    It’s shameful that Bolton is willing to publish a book but wasn’t willing to voluntarily testify.

    Speaking of books, apparently Trump’s niece, Mary Trump (a clinical psychologist) has one coming out in July, “Too Much And Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.” More info here:

    1. Committed:
      Yeah everyone loves and trusts a disgruntled, Judas-sequel family member. Very Jerry Springer but right in your intellectual wheelhouse. Maybe we’ll get a DNA test, too.

      1. Bolton was the “1st person” witness Republicans claimed was lacking and he said he’d testify before the Senate, which of course would be under oath. The stooge GOP senators voted for the first time in our nation’s history to hold an impeachment trial without witnesses. Voters should remember that.

        By the way, all other “1st person” witnesses had been blocked from testifying by Trump, though of course several 1st person witnesses to the famous phone call testified before the House and confirmed the accusation.

      2. Mary Trump is almost guaranteed to be more trustworthy than Pres. Trump. Of course, “more trustworthy than Pres. Trump” is an astoundingly low bar.

        Speaking of a DNA test, E. Jean Carroll is still seeking a DNA sample from Trump in her defamation suit against him re: his response to her claim that he raped her: (which has a link to the legal Notice).
        Trump is trying to avoid giving his DNA, more recent news here:

        1. I’ve been wondering what’s become of the E. Jean Carrol case. Thanks!

    2. Yes CommitToHonestDiscussion, you’re absolutely correct regarding Bolton. He should have agreed to testify when what he witnessed mattered. To me, it showed he cared more about his personal profits than about country. The timing of the book release only confirms his greed and his personal animosity towards Trump.

    3. i predict she already leaked the best info she had and that went nowhere. so now it will just be a bunch of stories

      but gossipy stories people like you will tend to lap up and repeat on cue for your mass media bosses, in order to gin up sales and satisfy their own political agendas.

  18. No president has a right to confidentiality when he engages in actions that deserve criminal investigation and prosecution. The AMERICAN people have the right to read this book.

    1. JH:
      “No president has a right to confidentiality when he engages in actions that deserve criminal investigation and prosecution. The AMERICAN people have the right to read this book.”
      We had three years of criminal (in every sense of the word) investigation of Trump or haven’t you heard? The result: Nada, zilch, nothing. Enjoin Snuffy Smith and put him in irons if he publishes. Btw, we hace no such “right,” by it makes a good bumper sticker which is coincidentally about the depth of the Left’s intellectual candlepower.

      1. The Mueller Report demonstrated collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, though it’s investigation did not yield enough proof to find for a criminal conspiracy – it noted lack of cooperation by the President – and offered 10 instances of obstruction of justice by the President.

        The impeachment hearings – again stonewalled by the President – found for impeachment for Trump’s attempt to leverage presidential powers as a corrupt aid to his own reelection, but it died in the Senate where the GOP majority voted for the 1st time in our history to not hear any witnesses, and that with the recent NS advisor waiting in the wings to testify under oath. Voters should remember that fact.

        1. No, it didn’t. You are simply lying or relying on the lies of someone else. You obviously never read the report. NO COLLUSION. Only Left wing media sources all falsely claim collusion. Get that through your head. Oh, and Hillary lost too. Dems just can’t accept their losses.

        2. Let me quote what I said before about you:

          “Your facts are fallacies.
          Your logic is non existant.
          Your personal lack of brevity is at odds with your claims against others.
          Your rudeness and need for four letter words exactly portrays who you are.
          Your call to authority is wrongly placed and quite inadequate.”

          Most of these points are true in everything you post.

      2. Unfortunately, it’s totally unsurprising that you’d falsely characterize the evidence of Trump’s criminal obstruction of justice with the SCO investigation, his abuse of power re: the Ukraine call, his emoluments clause violations (still being battled in court), the campaign finance law violations in paying off Stormy Daniels and then making a false declaration on his financial disclosure form to hide his reimbursement of Cohen, … as “Nada, zilch, nothing.”

        People who close their eyes to evidence see “nothing.”

          1. Gainesville uses this handle to transmit his son’s opinions. Sorta disconcerting.

        1. People who close their eyes to evidence see “nothing.”

          You are making everything up and can’t prove what you say as demonstrated time and again.

          For too long you have closed you eyes so you don’t recognize your Need to be committed.

    2. Then why are obama’s personal papers still under lock and key? I am very curious about much of it, most of it far more significant to obama’s life story than any business dealings of Trump’s.

      1. “why are obama’s personal papers still under lock and key?”

        As the National Archives notes: “Most Presidential records are not publicly available for five years after the end of the administration” ( ). Did you ask the same question about previous presidents’ personal papers less than 4 years after they left office?

  19. Bolton has always been a loose cannon and I thought he was a poor choice to begin with. However, since Trump did not expect to win, he had not really put a team together, so Bolton had bona fides.

    Bolton is a disgruntled ex-employee.

    1. In many circles, Bolton was considered highly credible until he opposed Trump. I think there’s no doubt he has relevant information, he was in the room when many decisions were made, the question is can he document any of his claims in the book or will they be corroborated by anyone when certainly at least one of the principals will deny everything negative as is his custom. I don’t like Bolton nor align with many of his views, the failure of the White House to complete the review process is clearly a stall to get past the election.

      1. enigma – there are a series of NDAs in effect as well, if true, that classified information is in play. This puts Bolton and the country at risk, not just Trump. I never thought Bolton was a good choice, too much of a hawk for me. And Trump did eventually tire of crossing swords with him.

        1. This “classified information” claim is just being made after months of suppressing the book, If true, the classified information should have led to negotiation for its removal, if not true, just another stall tactic to delay the revelation of one man’s truth. Given the history of Truimp and Barr, I think it far more likely the book contains no classified information, just a negative portrayal of the President. I also thing given his tepid response to COVID-19 and his divisive fueling the flames of conflict, keeping Trump in office puts the country at risk.

          1. enigma – they don’t know what is in the book until they start reading it and taking it apart. You really think Biden is going to be better? 😉

            1. They have had the book for months, how long does it take to read a book? Do I think Biden is the best available candidate? No. Do I think he’s less divisive than Trump? That goes without saying.

              1. enigma – he is a Democrat plantation owner, a sexual predator, etc. And he is literally losing his marbles. He will be replaced by his VP within the first 6 months. So, I ask you again. Is Joe Biden better?

                1. You are actually arguing that Biden shouldn’t be President because he is a sexual predator yet are ignoring the over 25 accusations of sexual harassment and rape (including of a 13-year-old) by Trump? How did you fail to see the hypocrisy. As far as “literally losing his marbles,” look at any Trump speech he didn’t read off a teleprompter and proclaim him sane. He may well indeed benefit from an unwarranted percentage of the black vote, but only because Republicans are not only not a viable alternative but are actively trying to suppress black votes.

                  1. enigma – what 13 y/o? and yes I am ignoring them because they seem to hold the same water as the attacks on Kavanaugh.

                    1. I normally provide the research you request but in this case, you might find it more credible if you find it yourself. It’s easy enough, just Google “Trump” and “13-year-old” and multiple stories will come up. Likely next to photo’s of Trump tucking it up with Jeffrey Epstein who used to recruit at Mar-a-Lago.

                    2. enigma – Bill and Hillary both went to Lolita Island, without SS coverage. Trump did not. The plane logs tell you where people went.

                    3. enigma – Check me on this if I am wrong, but Epstein lived in his penthouse. So, if Trump wanted to visit him he would have to visit him there.

                    4. Priobably, your hero never meekly submits to Judges and court orders, he just delays until the other side gets tired (or scared in the case of the 13-year-old he was accused of raping).

                    5. Paul, I think the dumpster diver has lost it. He stopped making sense a few posts back.

                    6. Enigma, such trash. It makes everything you say dirty and trashy even if one might agree with you. Trump threw epstein out of Mar a Lago. The funny thing is that Palm Beach is very restrictive and you couldn’t get a membership at a number of Palm Beach’s clubs but if you applied to Mar a Lago and had the money you could have gotten in. His club was open to many that were declined membership elsewhere due to race and religion.

                    7. I’m familiar with both the facts and what hasn’t been proven. Trump is still in court with Summer Zervos regarding her allegations (Trump keeps delaying his deposition) and is refusing to provide his DNA in a different rape allegation which he allegedly committed ironically in a department store on 5th Ave. He used his access to walk into dressing rooms with teenagers at the Teen USA Pageant yet you wish to put the allegation against Biden against Trump’s record?


                    8. enigma – her story is so flaky I would not give her my DNA either. God knows where she has been with that dress. 😉

                    9. You probably didn’t mind Clinton having to give his DNA? Trump’s blanket denials of everything, some of which have multiple witnesses apparently don’t ring as flaky? It would be interesting if discovery in the Summer Zervos case results in tapes that allegedly exist from The Apprentice get released. Of course, even seeing won’t be believing in some cases.

                    10. enigma – I am not seeing any of that happening. Honestly, I was tossed about Clinton giving a DNA sample for comparison. However, I am up for good gossip. 😉

            2. “You really think Biden is going to be better?”

              – PCS

              The choice is “free-dom” or “free stuff.” Freedom presents a real problem. It requires merit and self-reliance. “Free stuff” is free. That’s a no- brainer for parasites. The working thesis is “fundamentally transforming” America and Americans’ assets into the bank accounts of parasites through unconstitutional redistribution of wealth programs such as generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, quotas, forced busing, Obamacare, etc., etc., etc. It’s not complex.

              “I’ll have those ——- voting Democratic for 200 years.”

              – Lyndon Baines Johnson

              He has.

              C’mon, PCS!

              1. George – more and more are getting off the Democrat Party plantation.

      2. i never liked trump, used to complain about bolton long before trump was in the political arena.

        it was a disgustingly bad choice by trump and obviously he’s paying the price.
        one wonders who ‘gave him this idea”

        jared maybe? somebody fed it to jared who saw an angle for himself and whispered it in his ear?

        or maybe one of these other warmongers who are busy stabbing trump in the back now

        just shooting in the dark here.

        one of the key trump campaign policies was de-escalating potential military conflict with foreign adversaries and bolton was 180 degrees in the wrong direction from that. this is karma that trump has trouble from him now.

    2. Paul C Schulte, I agree with your assessment of Bolton and Trump’s inability to put together a proper team. It was obvious even before Trump brought in Bolton that the two would never get along or see eye to eye. Bolton is too much of a hawk, for example. His refusal to testify when it would have counted exposed his personal greed; the timing of his book exposes his personal animosity.

      But, I must add that Trump is probably the worst person when it comes to burning bridges. It’s a wonder there’s anyone left who supports him. He doesn’t appear to possess an ounce of common sense in how to handle those who disagree with him, during the disagreement and most especially afterward. There’s such a thing as swallowing your pride and letting people leave with dignity (as the saying goes, choose your battles). All of the tell-all books to me lay bare this fault of Trump rather than indicate that Trump is any worse than other presidents. His thin skin and publicized hostilities and insults only reinforce that he’s just an awful boss, and we’ve all had one at least once in our lives (but usually not so publicly illustrated). [Disclaimer: I’m still voting for him though.]

Comments are closed.