Bolten says trump wanted the aid frozen until he had answers to inquires sought

[Mountain Man]

It was in fact a threat.

False. "If you do X, then it will be a violation of the law," can not reasonably be construed as a threat. But then you lot stopped being reasonable a long time ago.

[Mountain Man]

1. Military bases have signs saying ‘Use of deadly force authorized’.
2. This is a threat.
3. Therefore, Trump has threatened to shoot you.

Pretty dumb logic, isn’t it? Most normal people interpret such warnings as merely what possibility could happen if you were to do something you’re not supposed to do. Yet more evidence that TDS appears to rot the reasoning centers of the brain.

I also like how they've studiously ignored the fact that this letter was received by Bolton before the leak while CNN gave the false impression that it was in response to it. They also haven't owned the fact that it came from the National Security Council, which is the proper channel for such a letter, and not from the White House like CNN falsely claimed.

Of course "White House issues formal threat to Bolton!!!!" plays much better with the TDS crowd than "National Security Council informs Bolton his manuscript contains classified information".

[NorrinRadd]

Yes, it's a threat. So flippin' what? The "threat" of unpleasant consequences is the deterrent for breaking laws.

[oxmixmudd]

Again, we don't know what Bolton actually said. This is all based on what the disreputable New York Times says that anonymous sources claim the draft manuscript says.

But let's suppose it's true, that this was an idea floated by Trump in a high level meeting with Bolton. So what? By all accounts, it was never put into action because nobody down the chain of command was ever given a direct order to that end. Certainly nobody in the Ukraine government was given such an ultimatum. In fact, when Mr. Sondland asked for clarification, he was clearly told "no quid pro quo". And then, of course, there's the phone call transcript which doesn't mention releasing aid in exchange for the investigations. For that matter, Trump didn't even mention withholding aid.

So whatever Trump might have told Bolton behind closed doors doesn't change a single fact of the case.

Indeed, the simple fact is that Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into I interfering in our elections. And not only are you and others here ok with it, you are cheering him on.

And unfortunately that makes you traitors to this country and everything it stands for - or at least that it has stood for prior to this this mockery of a president you elected

[Mountain Man]

Indeed, the simple fact is that Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into I interfering in our elections.

False. Quid Pro Joe wasn't even a candidate at the time all this went down (and still isn't; the primary still has many more weeks to go before that's even decided), and there is not a single piece of evidence pointing to the 2020 elections.

[lilpixieofterror]

I also like how they've studiously ignored the fact that this letter was received by Bolton before the leak while CNN gave the false impression that it was in response to it. They also haven't owned the fact that it came from the National Security Council, which is the proper channel for such a letter, and not from the White House like CNN falsely claimed.

Of course "White House issues formal threat to Bolton!!!!" plays much better with the TDS crowd than "National Security Council informs Bolton his manuscript contains classified information".

Lots of government agencies and even companies send out letters that give a ‘legal consequences’ paragraph. Normally, this is interpreted as possible consequences and you’ll be good, if you don’t break them. In the Trump era, it is taken to mean Trump is threatening you. It’s insanity and truly shows TDS is as bad as a TBI.

[Sparko]

It was more of a legal warning than a threat. It is standard boiler plate language. Trump didn't write it or authorize it.

[JimL]

It was more of a legal warning than a threat. It is standard boiler plate language. Trump didn't write it or authorize it.

It's more of an attempt to cover up Trumps crimes. They've had the manurscript for a month now. Any classified info, if there actually is any, could have been identified and edited out by now, but they will hold it under false pretenses for as long as they want.

[Mountain Man]

It's more of an attempt to cover up Trumps crimes. They've had the manurscript for a month now. Any classified info, if there actually is any, could have been identified and edited out by now, but they will hold it under false pretenses for as long as they want.

What is your basis for claiming that they could have vetted the manuscript earlier than they did?

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, it's a threat. So flippin' what? The "threat" of unpleasant consequences is the deterrent for breaking laws.

Thanks for being honest.

It would not be a big deal except it is being used to hide the truth about what Trump told Bolton. It's yet another obstruction move.

On the surface its simply a reality that if there is classified information in the book, that is the penalty.

But does anyone here believe (truly, not just pretend so you can twerk people you dont like) that this memo came out within a few days of the nyt leak by accident?

[Mountain Man]

Thanks for being honest.

Translation: "Thanks for agreeing with me."

What you don't appreciate is that I, too, am being honest.

But does anyone here believe (truly, not just pretend so you can twerk people you dont like) that this memo came out within a few days of the nyt leak by accident?

Of course it's not an accident. Bolton got the letter saying "There's classified stuff in your manuscript, so you can't publish it until the information is removed"; several days later, someone (Bolton? Vindman?) retaliated by "leaking" to the New York Times who dutifully published the "scoop"; CNN then ran a story giving the false impression that the letter was a response to the leak rather then the leak being a response to the letter.

I agree, none of this is an accident. It's a ready-made narrative that low-information fools uncritically gobble up.

[oxmixmudd]

Translation: "Thanks for agreeing with me."

What you don't appreciate is that I, too, am being honest.


Of course it's not an accident. Bolton got the letter saying "There's classified stuff in your manuscript, so you can't publish it until the information is removed"; several days later, someone (Bolton? Vindman?) retaliated by "leaking" to the New York Times who dutifully published the "scoop"; CNN then ran a story giving the false impression that the letter was a response to the leak rather then the leak being a response to the letter.

I agree, none of this is an accident. It's a ready-made narrative that low-information fools uncritically gobble up.

If the letter was issued before the leak then there is no reason to believe it was a purposed threat in response to the leak.

I stand corrected.

[Mountain Man]

If the letter was issued before the leak then there is no reason to believe it was a purposed threat in response to the leak.

I stand corrected.

Letter was sent to Bolton's lawyers on Jan 23. New York Times published the leak on Jan 26. A copy of the letter hit the news cycle on Jan 29. Of course the narrative pushed by the liberal media is that the letter was sent in response to the leak. It wasn't.

[JimL]

What is your basis for claiming that they could have vetted the manuscript earlier than they did?

For one thing, Bolton knows what would be classified and what would not, so there isn't going to be much in there that's classified to begin with. Second, they've had it for a month, how long does it take you to read a book?