Bolton's book was leaked to the press - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15062183
Hindsite wrote:
This so-called leak sounds fishy to me. Probably a publicity stunt to get more preorders of his book due out in March. Order on Amazon.com.
Or maybe it is just another example of fake news.



Or maybe you are ignoring it for the simple, yet obvious, reason that you don't like it.
#15062196
Atlantis wrote:Astonishing that America's last stand to defend a semblance of democracy should come from a Republican hard-core neocon.


Considering China's apparent downfall is initiated by that very man who is accused of destroying the United States' democracy, I do not find it surprising.

Everything has its vanquisher. It is just that sometimes we want, or even need, to be that vanquisher ourselves.
#15062219
Indy wrote:you don't want to have a conversation.


I don't want to have a conversation with you, or whatever you want to talk about. finfinder commented on my original comment, and that's what I want to talk about. You are just noise right now. Unless you want to comment on my comment about Bolton, which you haven't done.
#15062226
Patrickov wrote:Considering China's apparent downfall is initiated by that very man who is accused of destroying the United States' democracy, I do not find it surprising.


Trump will strengthen China because of his foolish foreign policy.

Trump is also undermining democratic institutions at home while giving democracy a bad name abroad.
#15062228
Atlantis wrote:Trump will strengthen China because of his foolish foreign policy.


Seriously no! I credit all the recent turmoil in China to the trade war. It renders China impotent. Even the recent epidemic can be said as a side-result from the tension created from the trade war.
#15062229
Rancid wrote:I don't want to have a conversation with you, or whatever you want to talk about. finfinder commented on my original comment, and that's what I want to talk about. You are just noise right now. Unless you want to comment on my comment about Bolton, which you haven't done.


My very first post in this thread is the second post in this thread. Perhaps you could've commented on it instead of trying to make this thread all about what you want to discuss.

My comments were clear. In my opinion, anyone who writes a book is suspect, simply because they have an ulterior motive: Money. Everything John Bolton has to say in his book could've been said elsewhere, assuming it's true. Then again, it's likely he's made some things out to be a tad more salacious than they actually are so that more people will buy the book.

It's interesting to note, though, that Bolton claims that Trump told him during a meeting in August that he did not want to release the military aid until Ukraine provided information related to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton and Biden. This is in direct conflict with the Democrat's argument that it had to do with the 2020 election.

Also, during the impeachment hearings, Bolton said he would fight any subpoena in the courts. Now, though, he's suddenly willing to testify? Why is that? What happened between December and now that's given him a change of heart? Additionally, if Bolton was that important a player in all of this, the Democrats should've sent a subpoena in December, regardless of the fact that any legal battle mounted by Bolton to fight the subpoena would've grossly prolonged the impeachment hearings.

No, the time for Bolton to be served a subpoena has come and gone. Once again, House Democrats blew it.
#15062234
Indy wrote:
It's interesting to note, though, that Bolton claims that Trump told him during a meeting in August that he did not want to release the military aid until Ukraine provided information related to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton and Biden. This is in direct conflict with the Democrat's argument that it had to do with the 2020 election.

Also, during the impeachment hearings, Bolton said he would fight any subpoena in the courts. Now, though, he's suddenly willing to testify? Why is that? What happened between December and now that's given him a change of heart? Additionally, if Bolton was that important a player in all of this, the Democrats should've sent a subpoena in December, regardless of the fact that any legal battle mounted by Bolton to fight the subpoena would've grossly prolonged the impeachment hearings.

No, the time for Bolton to be served a subpoena has come and gone. Once again, House Democrats blew it.



You've had maybe a dozen witnesses tell you Trump wanted fiction. He wanted dirt on Biden to smear him in the 2020 election. There are a lot of reasons to think that from things Trump said that have only recently come to light.

Bolton said he was going to wait for a court decision. After that, he said he was willing to testify.

You really ought to watch real news. Republicans keep getting kicked in the teeth. This time puts McConnell in a very difficult position because either Trump played him for a fool, or McConnell kept his guys in the dark about the book. Either way, that's a real kick in the head.
#15062242
late wrote:You've had maybe a dozen witnesses tell you Trump wanted fiction. He wanted dirt on Biden to smear him in the 2020 election. There are a lot of reasons to think that from things Trump said that have only recently come to light.


And none of those things negate the fact that Bolton said Trump wanted an investigation of the 2016 election.

Bolton said he was going to wait for a court decision. After that, he said he was willing to testify.


A court decision about what?

You really ought to watch real news. Republicans keep getting kicked in the teeth. This time puts McConnell in a very difficult position because either Trump played him for a fool, or McConnell kept his guys in the dark about the book. Either way, that's a real kick in the head.


Unfortunately, there's very little news out there which is objective. On the one hand, you've got CNN and MSNBC, both of which would have you believe that Trump wants to set fire to blind puppies on the 50 yard line during the Super Bowl halftime show and, on the other hand, you've got Fox News which would have you believe that Trump can fly and shit rainbows.

American journalism is a complete shit show. It's actually no longer "journalism". It's suffered decay to the point where all that matters is who has the biggest "gotcha-moment" in a given news cycle. They all suck, and none of them should be believed.
#15062243
Indy wrote:My very first post in this thread is the second post in this thread.


There's no requirement to comment on every post in a thread. I suggest you adjust your expectations.

I'm certainly not going to comment on a post I'm no interested in. You are free to do the same.
#15062247
Rancid wrote:There's no requirement to comment on every post in a thread. I suggest you adjust your expectations.

I'm certainly not going to comment on a post I'm no interested in. You are free to do the same.


I see.

I commented on Bolton. You just understand that my comment is without fault, and you know you can't argue it.

You wanted me to comment and I did. Now you don't want to have a discussion about it?

Thanks for the "win".

:lol: :lol: :lol:
#15062254
Indy wrote:
And none of those things negate the fact that Bolton said Trump wanted an investigation of the 2016 election.



A court decision about what?



Unfortunately, there's very little news out there which is objective. On the one hand, you've got CNN and MSNBC, both of which would have you believe that Trump wants to set fire to blind puppies on the 50 yard line during the Super Bowl halftime show and, on the other hand, you've got Fox News which would have you believe that Trump can fly and shit rainbows.

American journalism is a complete shit show. It's actually no longer "journalism". It's suffered decay to the point where all that matters is who has the biggest "gotcha-moment" in a given news cycle. They all suck, and none of them should be believed.



He wanted fake news. A false narrative about Biden. He never pursued corruption, he was creating it.

Why are you in this thread if you know next to nothing?? Bolton wanted the court decision about whether someone else could testify. Open and shut case. It was beyond silly for Bolton to do that. Executive Privilege does not extend to former employees.

Whining about how mean the media is won't help you. Just using Trump guys, like Sondland, Bolton and Parnas, it's game over.
#15062263
late wrote:He wanted fake news. A false narrative about Biden. He never pursued corruption, he was creating it.


But it had nothing to do with the 2020 election.

Why are you in this thread if you know next to nothing??


Excuse me?

I simply asked you a question. There's no need to act so snippy. Answer the question or don't, but your little outburst is not warranted.

I will post in whatever thread I please.

Bolton wanted the court decision about whether someone else could testify. Open and shut case. It was beyond silly for Bolton to do that. Executive Privilege does not extend to former employees.


If he was a man of character and morals, he wouldn't have waited to see if anyone else could testify. He'd have just done it instead of vowing to fight a subpoena.

Whining about how mean the media is won't help you. Just using Trump guys, like Sondland, Bolton and Parnas, it's game over.


Funny, I didn't say anything about how mean they are. I was commenting on how worthless they are.

Let me know if you need help determining the difference.
#15062273
Indy wrote:
But it had nothing to do with the 2020 election.


your little outburst is not warranted.





If he was a man of character and morals, he wouldn't have waited to see if anyone else could testify. He'd have just done it instead of vowing to fight a subpoena.



Funny, I didn't say anything about how mean they are. I was commenting on how worthless they are.





It had everything to do with the election. It's obvious, and far too many have said it. Bolton is just the latest.

Is that you saying you know you are shoveling a false narrative?

He didn't vow to fight a subpoena. False narrative.

It's also called Shooting the Messenger. You like false narratives, as long as they say what you want to hear.
#15062288
late wrote:He didn't vow to fight a subpoena. False narrative.


Not false at all.

"We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today. His counsel has informed us that unlike three other dedicated public servants who worked for him on the NSC and have complied with lawful subpoenas, Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him."


https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/john-bolton-no-subpoena-court-battle/index.html

I'm actually pretty astounded by how much you pretend to know. I can tell there's little reason to expect much in the way of intelligent discourse with you, so I'll just let you go stumble off into that little fantasy world that exists in your head.
#15062298
Indy wrote:
Not false at all.




He changed his stand, and said if that court case was decided against the administration, he would testify.

"Bolton indicated that he had planned to decide whether to testify based on the outcome of a court case brought by his former deputy Charles Kupperman. Kupperman — who had been subpoenaed to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiry but was ordered by Trump not to appear — sought a federal court ruling to resolve the conflicting demands."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/john-bolton-willing-to-testify-in-trumps-impeachment-trial-094757
#15062302
late wrote:He changed his stand, and said if that court case was decided against the administration, he would testify.

"Bolton indicated that he had planned to decide whether to testify based on the outcome of a court case brought by his former deputy Charles Kupperman. Kupperman — who had been subpoenaed to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiry but was ordered by Trump not to appear — sought a federal court ruling to resolve the conflicting demands."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06/john-bolton-willing-to-testify-in-trumps-impeachment-trial-094757


Here's what you said: "He didn't vow to fight a subpoena."

The fact of the matter is that he did vow to do exactly that. I posted what the Intelligence Committee said about it. Here, let me do that again for you:

"We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today. His counsel has informed us that unlike three other dedicated public servants who worked for him on the NSC and have complied with lawful subpoenas, Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him."

Now, perhaps "would take us to court if we subpoenaed him" means something entirely different in your world, but in the world of reasonable people "would take us to court if we subpoenaed him" means that he would fight it.

What do you think that statement means?
#15062307
Indy wrote:
Here's what you said: "He didn't vow to fight a subpoena."

The fact of the matter is that he did vow to do exactly that. I posted what the Intelligence Committee said about it. Here, let me do that again for you:

"We would welcome John Bolton's deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today. His counsel has informed us that unlike three other dedicated public servants who worked for him on the NSC and have complied with lawful subpoenas, Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him."

Now, perhaps "would take us to court if we subpoenaed him" means something entirely different in your world, but in the world of reasonable people "would take us to court if we subpoenaed him" means that he would fight it.





He later indicated he would testify.
#15062314
Atlantis wrote:Unless Bolton were to fall under some bus, Trump is dead meat.

Astonishing that America's last stand to defend a semblance of democracy should come from a Republican hard-core neocon.


Why should any thinking person believe there is anything to this latest eleventh hour bombshell, a word that has been over used the last three years. Even if you are against Trump and everything he stands for, what has the media and opposition ever produced as a bombshell that has come to any significant revelation. They are ones who have lost credibility and yet they still pray on what their consumers wish for, but never deliver.

I read that Italian and German far right parties a[…]

Meanwhile Sweden a somewhat SJWish lefty nation d[…]

My reflections on 2020 AD

CNN Downplayed Swine Flu Under Obama, Went Gonzo O[…]

Dr Fauci is now saying that we could see 100,000 […]