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

[Mountain Man]

Did you think I meant like they were going to Yovanovitch him? Come on.

Since some of you obviously need a little extra help here's the definition of the word threat I got from Google just now

a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

And which part of the letter do you think fits this definition? Exact quote, if you don't mind. No Shifty Schiff dramatizations.

[Mountain Man]

CNN claims that the White House "issued a formal threat". Now you're saying they are merely taking steps to prevent publication.

Which is it?

And now that I've taken a look at the actual letter, even the underlined is not correct. They're not saying Bolton can't publish the book. They're saying he can publish it after certain classified information has been removed. There's not even an implied "or else".

[Mountain Man]

"If you publish this book without the redactions we demand, you will be liable to lawsuits, possible forfeiture of profits, assets, or imprisonment" constitutes a legal threat.

--Sam

I'm not seeing that sentence in the letter that was posted to twitter. Is there another version of the letter floating around?

[DivineOb]

And which part of the letter do you think fits this definition? Exact quote, if you don't mind. No Shifty Schiff dramatizations.

I'll just steal Sam's answer which I realized is probably the right way to express things (and why I edited an earlier post).

Also there is a reference to "Under federal law" in the letter which I'm sure lays out the punishment for noncompliance. Clearly you and I both know that for a mortal to disclose Top Secret information carries serious penalties even without including that in the letter.

[Sam]

And now that I've taken a look at the actual letter, even the underlined is not correct. They're not saying Bolton can't publish the book. They're saying he can publish it after certain classified information has been removed. There's not even an implied "or else".

I'm not seeing that sentence in the letter that was posted to twitter. Is there another version of the letter floating around?

Apply your own post: The WH is saying that if Bolton removes the purportedly classified content in the book then he can publish it. If he tries to publish the book without removing that content, what happens? What's the implication?

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

I'll just steal Sam's answer

Sam's answer appears to be a Shifty Schiff Dramatization^TM and not a quote from the letter itself.

EPd6iFOXUAQ1Iiv.jpg

[DivineOb]

Sam's answer appears to be a Shifty Schiff Dramatization^TM and not a quote from the letter itself.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42427[/ATTACH]

Also there is a reference to "Under federal law" in the letter which I'm sure lays out the punishment for noncompliance. Clearly you and I both know that for a mortal to disclose Top Secret information carries serious penalties even without including that in the letter.

[demi-conservative]

Fake News deceives again. Mountain Man, there is no date in that picture of the letter. Why is that?

White House Told Bolton His Book Contains 'TOP SECRET' Information - 3 Days Before NYT Leak
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...-days-nyt-leak

CNN makes it sound like that the letter was a response to the NYT trash article and the resulting screaming, a threat to Bolton after allegations were public, when the letter was sent before that.

Fake News!

[oxmixmudd]

Sam's answer appears to be a Shifty Schiff Dramatization^TM and not a quote from the letter itself.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42427[/ATTACH]

Sams answer would be the (potential) penalties for disclosing TS information.

Now, as long as the information identified as TS are not Bolton's comments about Trumps motives to hold the payments, it could be on the up and up. Bolton could have accidentally included classified information.

But those elements would only be classified at that level if on a whim Trump made them so after the fact and as a pre-emptive strike to protect himself, which again points the the need to impeach him.

[DivineOb]

Here's the third paragraph in the CNN article

The letter, which is dated January 23, said some of the information was classified at the "top secret" level, meaning it "reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave harm to the national security."

[Mountain Man]

Apply your own post: The WH is saying that if Bolton removes the purportedly classified content in the book then he can publish it. If he tries to publish the book without removing that content, what happens? What's the implication?

--Sam

The implication is, of course, that he will be in violation of the law.

Suppose it's true that his manuscript does contain classified and top secret information. Is it not the duty of the relevant agencies to inform him and give him the opportunity to rectify the matter? That can not be reasonably construed as a threat.

[DivineOb]

The implication is, of course, that he will be in violation of the law.

Suppose it's true that his manuscript does contain classified and top secret information. Is it not the duty of the relevant agencies to inform him and give him the opportunity to rectify the matter? That can not be reasonably construed as a threat.

Can y'all hear the backpedaling?

[oxmixmudd]

The implication is, of course, that he will be in violation of the law.

Suppose it's true that his manuscript does contain classified and top secret information. Is it not the duty of the relevant agencies to inform him and give him the opportunity to rectify the matter? That can not be reasonably construed as a threat.

As I said, as long as it is legitimately classified information, it could be on the up and up.

The NYT disclosure isn't that unless Trump is again abusing his power as POTUS.

[Mountain Man]

Mountain Man, there is no date in that picture of the letter. Why is that?

Good catch.

So the leak happened after Bolton received the letter. Interesting. Was this Bolton's way of retaliating?

[Mountain Man]

Can y'all hear the backpedaling?

You're pumping your legs as fast as you can.

So now we're left with:

1) A letter that can in no way be construed as a threat
2) Sent to Bolton and his lawyers several days before the leak even happened

Puts a different spin on things, doesn't it?