The Impeachment Thread

[Franklin Pierce]

John Bolton Hints He’s Ready To Spill His ‘Backstory’ On White House Departure

President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton says he’s ready to share the “backstory” of his departure from the White House.

“Glad to be back on Twitter after more than two months,” Bolton tweeted. “For the backstory, stay tuned........”

​

Trump fired Bolton in September, though the former national security adviser denied that report and claimed he had turned in his resignation voluntarily.​

​

“I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House,” Trump announced in a pair of tweets on Sept. 10. “I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore ... I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning.”​

​

Bolton was known for being a hawk on Iran, North Korea and Syria. His aggressive foreign policy approach and eagerness for war frequently clashed with Trump’s own approach for less military intervention.​

​

Lawmakers have called on Bolton to testify as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry into Trump. Bolton’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, has said Bolton would be willing to do so if a court rules he must, given that the White House has chosen not to cooperate with the inquiry.​

​

In a letter to the chief House lawyer earlier this month, Cooper said Bolton knows about “many relevant meetings and conversations” surrounding Trump’s communications with Ukraine.​

​

According to Cooper’s letter, which he provided to HuffPost, Bolton “was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which [lawmakers] have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.”​

​

Bolton was reportedly concerned about Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic frontrunners for 2020, and his son Hunter. At one point, Bolton even ordered an aide to warn White House attorneys about Giuliani’s behavior.​

​

Cooper said Bolton “stands ready” to testify if courts resolve the “conflicting demands of the Legislative and Executive Branches.”​

John Bolton Hints He's Ready To Spill His 'Backstory' On White House Departure | HuffPost​

​

​

 

[Weezer]

In this situation? His credibility is irrelevant.

In a situation where the whistleblower’s credibility wasn’t irrelevant, then they could be called on to testify.

The claim was examined by the inspector general and then forwarded to the director of national intelligence. What’s going on now is a form of vetting.

Why is his credibility irrelevant? I guess I'm not understanding that.

 

[37L1]

Why is his credibility irrelevant? I guess I'm not understanding that.

Because Trump released the call "transcript", which was the basis for the WB complaint. Some people see a lot there, some people see nothing there. Either way his complaint was "verified."

 

[Weezer]

No. One is a convicted felon and there other has a clean record.

The other hasn't been subjected to investigation like the one, so how do we know he hasn't done anything? Point being, what made it okay to question and investigate the one, and what makes it not okay to question and investigate the other? Is it because the other is saying what you want to hear? It's all political IMO.

 

[Weezer]

Because Trump released the call "transcript", which was the basis for the WB complaint. Some people see a lot there, some people see nothing there. Either way his complaint was "verified."

I guess this is why I go back to my question of doesn't this whole WB thing open it up for political games? Did the WB come forward out of a sense of duty, or a sense of politics? JMO, but I think motivation does play a part. It could possibly be used to job the system.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

Feelz had a good week

 

[RockyTop85]

Why is his credibility irrelevant? I guess I'm not understanding that.

Because they have other witnesses that have testified substantively about the events mentioned in the complaint. They’re all whistleblowers. This focus on the first guy is smoke and mirrors.

I have cases all the time where the police will interview somebody who says something that gets verified through somebody else. Maybe they heard something from a dude down the street. So the cops go interview dude down the street and DDTS ends up being a witness at the trial. As long as the jury isn’t being told about what the first guy said, then there’s no rule saying the person has to be called.

I could call him. But I’m sure as hell not going to do that. Even if he’s a big dirt bag, what does it matter? How does that help my client? He’s going to get up there and say that he heard my client did it and Im going to say he’s a dirt bag. But there’s still the dude down the street.

 

[C-south]

Feelz had a good week

“I believe”

 

[RockyTop85]

Nope. But I'll bet he will.

Glad to see you can admit when somebody else is right.

 

[Ty4Vols]

No. One is a convicted felon and there other has a clean record.

See exactly the same!
(I hope you know I'm joking)

 

[Ty4Vols]

The other hasn't been subjected to investigation like the one, so how do we know he hasn't done anything? Point being, what made it okay to question and investigate the one, and what makes it not okay to question and investigate the other? Is it because the other is saying what you want to hear? It's all political IMO.

If you're serious...wow! You're welcome to come back to reality whenever you're ready.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Why is his credibility irrelevant? I guess I'm not understanding that.

Hasn't everything alleged in the complaint been confirmed under oath? You don't have to take the whistleblower's word for anything. Other officials have gone on the record with the same allegations.

 

[C-south]

Hasn't everything alleged in the complaint been confirmed under oath? You don't have to take the whistleblower's word for anything. Other officials have gone on the record with the same allegations.

“I believe”

 

[hjeagle1vol]

“I believe”

It's all they've got because none of it stands in a court of law.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The other hasn't been subjected to investigation like the one, so how do we know he hasn't done anything? Point being, what made it okay to question and investigate the one, and what makes it not okay to question and investigate the other? Is it because the other is saying what you want to hear? It's all political IMO.[/QUOTE

The other hasn't been subjected to investigation like the one, so how do we know he hasn't done anything? Point being, what made it okay to question and investigate the one, and what makes it not okay to question and investigate the other? Is it because the other is saying what you want to hear? It's all political IMO.

There was evidence of wrongdoing by Flynn in Turkey which warranted an investigation. If you have any knowledge of wrongdoing by Vindman, call the FBI. I haven't heard anything.

 

[Weezer]

If you're serious...wow! You're welcome to come back to reality whenever you're ready.

Wasn't Flynn considered above reproach until he wasn't? So who's to say Vindman is different? Engaging in politics changes people. Let's not pretend it doesn't. But people are much more willing to defend those who share their ideas than those that don't.

 

[Ty4Vols]

“I believe”

Like you "believe" regarding Hillary? But you dont see the difference? Dude c'mon you're being too special for a person who us obviously well educated.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Wasn't Flynn considered above reproach until he wasn't? So who's to say Vindman is different? Engaging in politics changes people. Let's not pretend it doesn't. But people are much more willing to defend those who share their ideas than those that don't.

Let's remember that this back and forth started with one simple point that I made: the only reason Trump was trying to discredit Vindman on Twitter was because he was testifying to information unfavorable to him.

 

[Ty4Vols]

Wasn't Flynn considered above reproach until he wasn't? So who's to say Vindman is different? Engaging in politics changes people. Let's not pretend it doesn't. But people are much more willing to defend those who share their ideas than those that don't.

So we now consider those that are innocent and not charged with a crime the same as we do a convicted felon because the innocent person hasn't been investigated and could possibly also be a criminal...
My lord you are no longer supporting American values with this stance.

 

[JCP201]

The other hasn't been subjected to investigation like the one, so how do we know he hasn't done anything? Point being, what made it okay to question and investigate the one, and what makes it not okay to question and investigate the other? Is it because the other is saying what you want to hear? It's all political IMO.

wow.

 

[Weezer]

Let's remember that this back and forth started with one simple point that I made: the only reason Trump was trying to discredit Vindman on Twitter was because he was testifying to information unfavorable to him.

But let's be real for a moment. You believe Vindman because you dislike Trump. Others attack Vindman because they like Trump. I'm not taking sides, just pointing out a simple truth. People are more likely to defend those who echo what they themselves believe. Having a Purple Heart, while highly commendable and something deserving of respect, does not mean someone is above repute. Just an observation.

 

[C-south]

Like you "believe" regarding Hillary? But you dont see the difference? Dude c'mon you're being too special for a person who us obviously well educated.

Lol. You keep comparing two totally different things. Hillary had actual physical evidence of her crimes. The FBI stated her guilt but chose to let her off without being tried. The AG was in on it as well. With Trump you have partisan hacks with second hand information giving their opinion on what “they believe”. Not a shred of actual evidence just thoughts on what “they think” might’ve happened. Worst case they say Trump was wrong but investigate Biden and them other dims with shady Ukraine dealings but we know that won’t happen. That would be a waste of tax dollars....right?

 

[Weezer]

So we now consider those that are innocent and not charged with a crime the same as we do a convicted felon because the innocent person hasn't been investigated and could possibly also be a criminal...
My lord you are no longer supporting American values with this stance.

First, I think you're twisting things. Second, when people get involved in politics, how I view them changes. Politics is complicated and never simple.

 

[Ty4Vols]

But let's be real for a moment. You believe Vindman because you dislike Trump. Others attack Vindman because they like Trump. I'm not taking sides, just pointing out a simple truth. People are more likely to defend those who echo what they themselves believe. Having a Purple Heart, while highly commendable and something deserving of respect, does not mean someone is above repute. Just an observation.

So your point is that one is believed upon political affiliation not the person's life and integrity they have amassed?
You're the one making a political divide and the fact you dont see it is sad.

 

[BowlBrother85]

But let's be real for a moment. You believe Vindman because you dislike Trump. Others attack Vindman because they like Trump. I'm not taking sides, just pointing out a simple truth. People are more likely to defend those who echo what they themselves believe. Having a Purple Heart, while highly commendable and something deserving of respect, does not mean someone is above repute. Just an observation.

Depends on how you are trying to go about impugning Vindman's credibility. Once again, I'm speaking only in the narrow context of Vindman, and how Trump was suggesting that his loyalties were with the Ukraine. Coming from a man who dodged service, that is despicable.