Last year, in columns and testimony, I chastised the Democrats for the shortest investigation on the narrowest grounds with the thinnest record of any presidential impeachment in history. The insistence of impeaching by Christmas doomed any chances of a compelling impeachment case. It appears now that one person agrees with that assessment: former National Security Adviser John Bolton. I referenced Bolton and his upcoming book as one of the reason why a little more time could vastly improve and expand the House case. Bolton said that he simply wanted a court to refer the privilege claim, which could have been accomplished easily in the time wasted by the House (including the long delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate). In response, the Democratic leadership is lashing out at Bolton for refusing to come forward despite his offer to do so after a federal judge heard the privilege claim.
Bolton insists that the House Democratic leadership “committed impeachment malpractice” by centering its case too “narrowly on Ukraine when Trump’s Ukraine-like transgressions existed across the full range of his foreign policy.”
The excerpts from the book, if true, would more demonstrate a bad president than an impeachable president. Favors offered to other countries and reckless promises are unlikely to amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. However, Bolton alleges a pattern of obstruction which could, with more evidence, yield serious allegations. He states “Had the House not focused solely on the Ukraine aspects of Trump’s confusion of his personal interests there might have been a greater chance to persuade others that ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ had been perpetrated.”
The point is that, before the House impeachment hearing, Bolton indicated that he would testify if the matter of his testimony were taken before a federal court. He did not say he would wait for appeals. He wanted legal cover. As I stated in my testimony, even a trial ruling against the Administration would strengthen the claims against the President and possibly prompt Bolton to testify (as did other Administration officials).
Not only has the House been curiously passive in seeking to force such testimony; it actually withdrew one of the few subpoenas facing a court ruling in the case of Charles Kupperman, Trump’s former deputy national security advisor. Kupperman was willing to testify and simply wanted court review, but the House strangely withdrew its request that he testify.
The failure to pursue such witnesses by the House was used predictably by the White House in the Senate trial.
The fact is that the House could have waited and could have built a stronger case. I opposed the position of my fellow witnesses that the definition of actual crimes is immaterial to their use as the basis for impeachment — and I specifically opposed impeachment articles based on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles I felt could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting my position on abuse of power. Our only disagreement was that I opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate.
Pelosi and Schiff made a mockery out of their defense for the rushed impeachment when they stopped and let weeks go by before sending the articles to the Senate. I previously discussed the conflicted position of the House. From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed. More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.
Now, in response to Bolton, House leadership is blaming him not their disastrous strategy. Chairman Adam Schiff insisted that Bolton “may be an author, but he’s no patriot.” Perhaps, but Bolton could say the impeachment showed Schiff was a politician but no tactician.
Schiff said that Bolton should have testified like his staff and added “When Bolton was asked, he refused, and said he’d sue if subpoenaed. Instead, he saved it for a book.” The point however is the Schiff did not try to litigate in court and the House withdrew a related case shortly before the court could rule. It then rushed the impeachment only to stop on a dime and wait for weeks of delay in transmitting the articles of impeachment.
One can disagree whether the allegations in the Bolton book amount to impeachable offenses, but they are certainly the type of allegations that the Democrats relied upon for impeachment. Of course, this is one form of malpractice that is impossible to litigate. Some forms of gross negligence are virtually without penalty. Those who wanted the impeachment are often unwilling to even consider whether they were played for chumps in this rushed effort. Neither the media nor the Democratic base is willing to objectively look at the failure to pursue a broader and more substantive case against Trump. For Trump to be illegitimate, the impeachment must be immaculate.
Your article states:
“findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. ”
_______________________________________________________
So what? the data could have been moved to mass storage device after it was obtained by a remote hack.
I have never understood why anyone thinks this is evidence of how the data was obtained.
Anyone who is competent enough to hack into the DNC server is also competent enough to alter the metadata to make it look like the data was hacked by the Russians or make it look like it was an inside job.
if it was a remote hack then there obviously was code on the server that was executed that transferred the data. If it was an inside job then that would be evident by the absence of such code.
The problem here is you cannot trust Mueller or Crowdstrike or the group of former U.S. intelligence officers to give an honest assessment. They all exist to pull the wool over your eyes and blow smoke up your ass.
The only thing you can say for sure is who benefited from this hack? The deep state is clearly the answer to that question. Anybody who thinks Hillary was the deep state’s first choice to win in 2016 is a knuckle-dragging moron. The deep state would have been OK with Hillary, but Trump elected was their wildest dream come true.
Trump Stooge Takes Over Voice Of America.
Promptly Purges Those Who Reported on Russian Meddling And Chinese Concentration Camps
President Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Agency for Global Media, Michael Pack, showed up to work Wednesday for the first time after being approved by the U.S. Senate two weeks earlier.
His words to staff were affirming. His actions were anything but.
Pack swiftly sidelined most of the agency’s senior leadership by stripping them of their authority. He also fired the chiefs of the government-sponsored broadcast networks for foreign audiences that his agency oversees, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Radio Free Asia; Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which oversees Radio and Television Martí; and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, which runs Alhurra and Radio Sawa.
The two top officials at Voice of America resigned days earlier in anticipation of Pack’s arrival.
Pack dissolved advisory boards over each of the networks and placed his own aides above them. He gave no reason for his actions other than his authority to do so, according to two people with direct knowledge of the day’s events.
VOA has aired highly critical reports from China, particularly regarding the government’s ongoing persecution of Uighurs and other Muslims.
The people swept out by Pack include those who have received praise for helping their networks fight misinformation from China and Russia with factual reporting. And they include officials appointed during the Trump presidency.
Edited from: “Trump’s New Foreign Broadcasting CEO Fires News Chiefs, Raising Fears Of Meddling”
Today’s NPR
……………………………………………………………….
The article explains that Michael Pack is a former associate of Steve Bannon. Pack’s nomination took 2 years to clear the Senate. He now purges Voice of America when Trump’s presidency may only have 6 months to go.
Impeachment Was Rushed For Election Year
Of course Democrats should have spent more time on impeachment. But the primary elections were set to begin in February.
In retrospect it’s a good thing the impeachment trial went on when it did. The pandemic would have made the trial an unaffordable luxury.
But because Democrats rushed impeachment, historians will know that Trump was already impeached ‘before’ his disastrous pandemic response. And that will be a talking point for decades to come.
Historians will say, “The irony is that Trump had been impeached just before the pandemic. But Republicans kept him in office when Trump had clearly distinguished himself as mentally unhinged”. Trump’s extensive Tweet stream will confirm that last part.
Seth, I don’t see Clinton’s impeachment affecting him much since it happened years ago, before history was substantially rewritten by the demagogues. And what makes you think that recent history won’t be rewritten?
Additionally, there’s too much recent re-framing of recent history and events to somehow show that Trump has mental issues to deflect from Biden’s dementia. Sorry, but too many of us have had personal experiences dealing with losing someone to dementia, and your attempting to comparing Trumps tweet complaints and rants to Biden’s loss of entire thoughts and comprehension fools nobody.
John Bolton
Faithful solder of the Military/Industrial/Intel/Deep Deep State Complex a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Global Communist Party.
John Bolton is an unapologetic American Supremacist. He despises all global institutions that seek to curtail American sovereignty and free action. Have you ever even heard of John Bolton before today?
You just sound upset he’s advertising how Trump has weakened America at home and abroad.
You’re absolutely correct.
John Bolton is going realize his dream of “American Supremacy” by riding the coattails of the formidable and totally corrupt Joke Biden and his mentor, General Secretary Barack Obama, who, in fact, weakened America significantly and continues to perpetrate a Coup D’etat in America to further that weakened status and, ultimately, deliver America to their deal leader, Xi Jin Ping, in China.
You’ve been completely indoctrinated. You only see black and white, Trump and Not Trump. Refuse to lick Trump’s boots and you will be branded a commie. Only Dear Leaser can save us, and no one else.
What a world view. Sad.
“John Bolton
Faithful solder of the Military/Industrial/Intel/Deep Deep State”
Do you mean like melted lead?
Keep up the good work. You continue to clean up the excretions. You’re good at it.
Mr. Turley,
One thing leftists consistently excel at is “blaming [others] for their dipterous” anything.
One thing at which they consistently, spectacularly fail at doing is even giving the appearance of being “willing to objectively look at” anything.
Bolton also claims that Trump told Chinese President Xi that building concentration camps for millions of Uighur Muslims was “exactly the right thing to do.”
Meanwhile, “Trump campaign runs ads with marking once used by Nazis to designate political prisoners”
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-campaign-runs-ads-with-marking-once-used-by-15349154.php
Trump is a dangerous bigot. I’m not expecting a landslide vote against him, but it sure would be nice.
There’s a school of thought the entire country is becoming a political concentration camp run by leftist fascists. Then, too, SFGate asserts, in the same article that “…[the involvement of] a loose collection of anti-fascist activists whom the Trump administration has sought to tie to recent violence…[is trivial, based on arrest records…] So far, however, the alleged menace has been mostly nonexistent – a focal point of online alarm not reflected in scenes of mostly peaceful protest across the country. Despite warnings of antifa incursions in scores of cities, there is no evidence linking outbursts of violence to an organized left-wing effort.”
That “There’s a school of thought” doesn’t imply that the belief in question is true. Some people believe the world is flat. But it isn’t true.
Just how do you define “political concentration camp” anyway?
According to you, how would we know whether “the entire country is becoming a political concentration camp run by leftist fascists” vs. “the entire country is becoming a political concentration camp run by rightist fascists” vs. neither?
And Bolton’s claim is about Trump’s response to China’s literal (physical) concentration camps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps
It’s striking that you prefer to deflect from those.
In all fairness to the CCP, who dont really deserve fairness but i will say this anyhow, the “re-education facilities” are not really concentration camps. There is no evidence of starvation nor summary executions. They are rather like minimum security prisons where people have to chant Commie songs and slogans and learn some job skills. Maybe they are pressured to eat pork for all I know.
Mostly from what i can tell, they are propaganda facilities, which, based on the scanty information and films i have seen of them, remind me of American universities, except they are more orderly.
I don’t doubt there are some bad places where the really difficult Uighurs are being detained, but we do not really know where.
On the one hand, I condemn the CCP’s deliberate campaign against the Uighur nationality by the larger strategy of “Sinicization.” Uighurs have a right to exist. And, of course, in my thinking as an American, they have a right to worship as they please, including to be Muslims.
However i sometimes pause. I wonder, perhaps if one is a Chinese person, one thinks, we are not going to agree to let the tail wag the dog. There are many ethnic minorities in China besides the Han people. Perhaps they are not going to let one of the many many ethnic minorities in their nation, call all the shots for all the other nationalities, including the one the whole country is named after.
Something to ponder?
“concentration camps” aren’t limited to places with “starvation … [and] summary executions.”
The U.S. Japanese internment camps were concentration camps.
The U.S. detention camps at the border are concentration camps.
“An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That’s Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border
“‘Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz.’ …”
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/
And the Xinjiang re-education camps were also concentration camps.
Miss Adam’s, that’s not a “school of thought”, it’s a school for flunkies.
“Anyone who believes Bolton as a pure idiot. He was a war monger years ago. Why Trump hired him is be beyond me” From a black supporter of Trump….
That comment reflects a serious misunderstanding of AMB Bolton’s policy positions over the years. He advocated use of force in the same contexts as none other than Madeline Albright.
That “quote” is likely invented.
If you do a quoted internet query for that “quote,” it comes up empty.
The House made a mistake from the get-go in holding hearings behind closed doors to build up a case (aka find an impeachable offense). That dirtied the water for all that followed.
Bolton is dishonest. He has been for a long time. He’s a big war hawk but when it was his turn to serve, he avoided active service by joining the Air Guard, which in most cases was a sure way to avoid Vietnam. (LBJ’s son-in-law joined the reserves but then requested active duty and in one of the few combat roles for Air Force enlisted men.) In short, he’s typical of many Republican big mouths. He has a history of false claims made during his years in government. Why Donald Trump brought him into his administration is one of his worst mistakes.
A great many people joined the Guard and Reserves, and, of all things, the US Public Health Service to ‘avoid’ active service. Most of them not Republicans. Examples of his ‘false claims’, please.
And yet, as more and more FACTS come out, it looks like Trump was right about the Crowdstrike thing, and that the Russians did not send the DNC server stuff to Wikileaks. Plus, even if Trump did put pressure The Ukraine, that can’t be too serious because they are quite happy with Biden doing the same thing while his son was getting grift money there.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“as more and more FACTS come out, it looks like Trump was right about the Crowdstrike thing, and that the Russians did not send the DNC server stuff to Wikileaks”
SMH at your evidenceless claim. Go ahead, Squeeky, present your so-called “facts.”
“if Trump did put pressure The Ukraine, … Biden [was] doing the same thing…”
Yeah, all “pressure” is interchangeable. There’s clearly no difference between Trump’s illegal quid pro quo (e.g., an attempt to extort Ukraine), which he attempted to hide and doesn’t serve U.S. goals but only Trump’s person goal of reelection and Russia’s goals, and Biden’s legal quid pro quo, which was not only public and served our goals of getting rid of a corrupt and ineffective Ukrainian prosecutor (Shokin), but was supported by bipartisan members of Congress and the EU. /s
His facts are all out in the open, enveloped in the 57 transcripts of people who testified in the original House Intel Investigation into Russian collusion. Along with the facts that have come out with respect to Biden’s pressure on Ukraine which I just submitted for posting (and thus won’t repeat here).
Squeeky refers to herself as a “girl reporter,” so you probably want to say “her facts,” not “his.”
And evidenceless handwaving claim that the “facts are all out in the open” is only that: handwaving. Anyone who wanted to truly cite HPSCI evidence would quote from the many transcripts.
Re: “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is trying to figure out exactly why it would be the position of the U.S. Government to interfere in the work of the General Prosecutor of a foreign country,” LOL, as there was bipartisan support for it at the time: https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help
Maybe the Senate FRC should ask their fellow Senators about that. Portman is even on the Senate FRC: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/membership
LOL – exerting pressure on foreign governments is also called diplomacy. I’ve been in the room while it was going on. Disabuse yourself of the notion that strategic arm-twisting is either illegal or immoral.
Sometimes “strategic arm-twisting” is illegal and/or immoral, and other times it isn’t. Disabuse yourself of the notion that it’s never “illegal or immoral.”
here’s the proof. it was a leak not a hack. if it was a hack then the hacker was sucking a golf ball through a garden hose. not possible the volume of data came over these lines in the way crowdstrike said it did
Crowdstrike was making stuff up for its client and FBI didnt follow SOPs in gathering the digital evidence. This is an easy one, really, and every time I answer this question you guys just buzz off because the truth hurts to know how massively the FBI and the Democratic leadership and the mass media all have been lying about this very important little thing.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
Your link’s claim there that “the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original ‘Guccifer 2.0’ material” is patently false, and the date (July 24, 2017) precedes a lot of the testimony about it.
From Crowdstrike:
“When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” It involves making an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in incident response investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.”
“June 2016: The FBI requested forensic information, indicators of compromise (pieces of malicious code) that CrowdStrike discovered on the DNC computer network. With DNC permission, CrowdStrike continued to share information from the breach through December 2016, including “digital images” or copies of hard-drives.”
There’s more info in testimony under oath, see https://intelligence.house.gov/russiainvestigation/ especially:
Interview Transcript of Shawn Henry (December 5, 2017) and
Interview Transcript of Yared Tamene Wolde-Yohannes (August 30, 2017)
The date on your article precedes the dates when this testimony occurred, much less when it was made public.
That the FBI received images of DNC servers instead of making their own images doesn’t imply that they did no independent analysis/forensics.
CTHD
SOP for all digital evidence investigations is to SEIZE THE SERVERS
the FBI WALKS THEM OFF PREMISES and MIRROR IMAGES the hard drives.
look it up. from the lowest illegal porn case to the highest financial fraud prosecutions.
THEY NEVER TOOK ANY SERVERS INTO FBI CUSTODY
roll this around in your head: they did not do what they always do.
ergo,
the entire investigation was, thus, fake.
BECAUSE THEY KNEW HOW WIKILEAKS GOT IT ALL ALONG–
A LEAK
THAT’S WHY ASSANGE CALLED IT WIKI – LEAKS
gosh this is so simple and you guys are either incredibly dense, or more likely, just dishonest
FFS, drop the insults. An adult should be able to disagree with someone without resort to nonsense like “you guys are either incredibly dense, or more likely, just dishonest.” Honest, intelligent adults can disagree. This kind of divisive crap where you pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or dishonest isn’t good for the country. If you care about the country, choose to rein in your inclination to indulge in that crap.
And notice how you move the goalposts. Your link’s claim there that “the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics …” and it’s bullsh*t, because the actual forensic analysis does not depend on the physical location of the servers, but on the digital imaging, and the FBI can and did do independent forensic analysis of that data. If you cannot bring yourself to admit their claim false, that’s a problem. If you cannot admit that it was written before lots of relevant testimony even occurred, that’s a problem.
Not only that, but you insist that I simply take your word that “SOP for all digital evidence investigations is to SEIZE THE SERVERS the FBI WALKS THEM OFF PREMISES and MIRROR IMAGES the hard drives.” I’m open to being convinced with actual evidence. Do you have actual evidence from the FBI that that’s what they do 100% of the time?
maybe these guys like CTHD believe FBI doesnt lie about its own investigations
they lie about them EVERY DAY
there are abundant legal excuses they have and do use to mislead the public.,
national security, ongoing investigations, etc.
they FAKED the whole DNC “hack” story for who knows what reasons but by now it’s pretty obvious, whole thing FAKE FBI LIES
liked they have faked so many others
naive, you are, or just faking it?
Not to mention, it looks like Trump was right about Biden. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is trying to figure out exactly why it would be the position of the U.S. Government to interfere in the work of the General Prosecutor of a foreign country, Leaked recordings of Biden on the phone with former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko have him telling Biden that an investigation into GP Victor Shokin have found he was not corrupt, and then as Biden tells him Shokin must be fired, he agrees to comply. We have seen from released (personal) emails of impeachment darling Marie Yovonovitch that she was indeed completely involved in shenanigans of taking money from Burisma and trying to ward off investigations into the company. (Hope the SFRC subpoena’s HER again so she can explain her extensive perjury to the House Intel and Judiciary Committees.) We have just days ago, the Ukraines finding evidence of a U.S. $6 million bribe to stop the investigation into Burisma, and we have Senator Ron Johnson telling Maria Bartoromo that Burisma’s U.S. lobbying firm complied with a subpoena and delivered more than 2600 documents to them for their investigation. This story is only going to get bigger as the election nears.
Meanwhile (and yeah I said it yesterday but it bears repeating…)
Bolton is a man who himself was known to complain about ex-government workers writing gossipy tell-all books for no other reason than revenge because their policy ideas and advice were rejected. How pathetic is it for a man at the end of his career to go down as a person he once said was just what he himself despised.
“the Democratic leadership is lashing out at Bolton for refusing to come forward despite his offer to do so after a federal judge heard the privilege claim.”
The McGahn subpoena is STILL being litigated. And absolutely nothing prevented Bolton from testifying without a subpoena and simply refusing to answer specific questions due to privilege, just like Fiona Hill did. Bolton is an unpatriotic coward. If he can publish a book with these claims, he could have testified about them before Congress.
“I opposed the position of my fellow witnesses that the definition of actual crimes is immaterial to their use as the basis for impeachment”
They did not say that the definition was “immaterial.” They disagreed with you that high crimes have to be **statutory** crimes. Figure out how to discuss their views honestly. The entire testimony is here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?466833-1/hearing-constitutional-framework-impeachment
“Neither the media nor the Democratic base is willing to objectively look at the failure to pursue a broader and more substantive case against Trump.”
This is total bullsh*t. I’m part of the Democratic base, and I wrote my members of Congress about that. I wanted the articles of impeachment to include more of Trump’s crimes. And lots of columns written at the time showed that I’m not the only Democrat who felt that way.
None of this excuses Bolton’s behavior. It’s sad that Mr. Turley is more interested in criticizing Democrats than Bolton for his unpatriotic choice, or Republicans for their unpatriotic choice not to call witnesses, or Trump for his impeachable acts. Trump regularly acts contrary to his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Shame on everyone who excuses it.
Let’s dive right into this & elucidate the subject matter.
John Bolton is going to make a lot of money on this book. Fact or fiction, Bolton’s security clearance should be revoked. Adam Schiff may use Bolton’s book to write more articles of impeachment against Trump.
One thing is for sure, Adam Schiff takes better Schitts than Rosie O’Donnell.
In conclusion, I lament over this controversy.
And he will lose every penny if the book really does include ANY classified information. As many disgruntled, U.S. government employee authors have learned the hard way.
JT focuses on saving his face while ignoring what Bolton’s book does to Trump’s.
The House developed enough evidence to gain a vote for impeachment and hearing that evidence, including witnesses is the Senate’s job. Given the GOP complete subservience to Trump, does JT think Bolton’s testimony before the House would have somehow changed their already made up minds? They voted against witnesses like Bolton for the 1st tinge ever in our history. The House did it’s job, the Senate did not and voters should remember that.
Switching seats on the Titanic there, Professor.
Bolton’s book is a reiteration that Trump is a walking impeachment in terms of cause. But he’s always been protected by Mitch McConnell in the Senate.
Ukraine provided a hologram for the rampant corruption of the Trump administration and Trump himself. The case was made. He was impeached in the House. The Senate refused to hear witnesses. You testified to throw mud in the gears in the House investigation. It’s pretty much plain as day. No amount of material was going to sway the Senate. And Trump has gone on to bungle pandemic response and social upheaval hence.
No amount of patting yourself on the back should be used as justification for this set of circumstances, Jon. You are *way* on the wrong side of history in this one.
And, oh yeah, Bolton is slime and always has been. The man has generations of blood on his hands.
So let’s spare ourselves quotes like this: “The excerpts from the book, if true, would more demonstrate a bad president than an impeachable president.”
Schiff is a little thin skinned it seems.
I think Trump would have pulled Exec Privilege on Bolton’s testimony. I didn’t like Bolton before and he is not doing himself any favors with me.
Trump cannot prevent someone who is no longer part of the Executive Branch from testifying if they want to. Fiona Hill testified. Even people who still worked for the Executive Branch at the time, like Marie Yovanovitch, testified. Bolton was simply too cowardly and too unpatriotic.
Trump cannot “pull[] Exec Privilege” on everything Bolton chooses to say, and any more than he can do that with everything Bolton has written. Moreover, Trump is claiming “Wacko John Bolton’s “exceedingly tedious”(New York Times) book is made up of lies & fake stories. Said all good about me, in print, until the day I fired him. A disgruntled boring fool who only wanted to go to war. Never had a clue, was ostracized & happily dumped. What a dope!” If Bolton’s book is “made up of lies & fake stories,” then there is no classified material in it and no executive privilege at all, contrary to the DOJ’s claims about it. And Trump is the one who **hired** this “dope.” Trump is incompetent.
Here, I am in agreement. The impeachment process should have been more expansive, more detailed, and more defined in the areas where witnesses were compelled to testify but refused. All the dirty laundry should have been aired. The verdict would not have changed, however. McConnell and the rest of the GOP Senate had already, almost flat out, stated that the verdict would be to exonerate Trump. It was another case of, ‘He may be a blithering idiot, poltroon, and pathological liar, but he’s our blithering idiot, poltroon, and pathological liar.’
In the cause of transparency, truth, and exposing this travesty of a Presidency, the more the better.
Bolton looks like a dork with that mustache.
The whole impeachment thing was a Farce. I suppose making it a 90% Farce could be considered an improvement. But theatrically speaking, I think it better to not try to dilute Farce, lest the audience becomes confused.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Crabs in a bucket, these characters.