Bolton's new Book (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    TaylorB

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 20, 2019
    Messages
    460
    Reaction score
    1,879
    Age
    38
    Location
    Louisiana
    Offline
    1588961417174.png
    By Taylor Bassett - Staff Writer |1588967955253.png @bassett_taylor | MadAboutPolitics.com

    Yesterday, the DOJ filed a civil lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton from releasing his tell-all book, The Room Where It Happened (my apologies to Lin-Manuel Miranda for even typing that title out). Here is the lawsuit:




    The crux of the DOJ's complaint is that by distributing the book now, Bolton is side-stepping a review process by the National Security Council, which was conducting a pre-publication review of the book to protect against disclosure of classified information Bolton possesses as a result of his employment with the government. In addition to the injunction, the lawsuit seeks to have the court declare that Bolton is in violation of agreements he entered into with the government as a condition of his employment.

    The Barr-Bolton dispute touches on some interesting issues.

    First, unless you've been living under a rock, you'll recall Bolton's connection to the dramatic conclusion to the Trump-Ukraine impeachment saga. During the Senate trial, Bolton expressed willingness to testify to some of the issues raised in the House investigation. There was debate on this board about whether Bolton would specifically connect Trump's withholding of aid to investigations helpful to his re-election:
    Bolton's book is expected to shed light on information related to the Trump-Ukraine scandal, which is potentially damaging to Trump and the Senate Republicans who voted against calling witnesses in the trial, including Bolton.

    Bolton's book is also expected to touch on Trump's relationship with Turkey's Recep Erdogan:
    As noted in the twitter thread in my linked post, Bill Barr has tried to use the DOJ to prevent prosecutors from the Southern District of New York from indicting the Turkish Halkbank, which according to Bolton's book, was part of a personal favor from Trump to Erdogan. And as I noted in my prior post, Trump's efforts with Erdogan bring to mind the United States' sudden withdrawal from our position alongside the Kurds in Syria after a Trump-Erdogan phone call. We don't yet fully understand what is behind this Trump-Erdogan courtship, but we do know from the recently revealed Roger Stone search warrants that there's been an investigation into Turkey's involvement in Trump's 2016 election; we also know that Trump has properties in Istanbul, and that Trump's national security transition officials Michael Flynn and Bijan Kian were secretly lobbying on behalf of Turkey during the election.

    Bolton's perspective on Trump's opaque foreign policy maneuvers is certain to raise even more questions about what motivates Trump. Reportedly, Bolton's book claims that Trump's decisions are strictly motivated by his reelection chances:


    This could gain increased significance as we approach November 2020, especially if we see the Trump administration making foreign policy decisions favoring the countries alleged to have offered election assistance in 2016, including Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey. Or if we see favorable policies directed at the countries who we believe support his reelection in 2020, which reportedly includes China, and almost certainly includes the aforementioned countries. Is our foreign policy being "sold" to help increase Trump's reelection chances? That is, after all, what impeachment was about: Trump withholding aid to Ukraine, an ally, to the benefit of Russia, an enemy, to improve his reelection odds. If the thesis of Bolton's book is that Trump's modus operandi is to make foreign policy decisions to benefit himself above anything else, that thesis appears to be corroborated by a great deal of public information.

    More broadly, the Barr-Bolton dispute demonstrates the consequences of the damage that Barr and Trump have already done to the rule of law. Anyone who recognizes the ways Bill Barr uses the DOJ as cover to act as Trump's personal attorney is likely to think Barr's lawsuit is simply doing more of the same by claiming the NSC needs "more time" to review Bolton's book for classified information. Trump and his associates have time and again used dubious claims of "executive privilege" and "absolute immunity" to avoid dissemination of information that is politically harmful to him -- why wouldn't they claim Bolton's book risks publishing classified information in order to delay or prevent its release?

    To be clear, when a former high-level official wants to disclose potentially sensitive information, especially for strictly personal gain, I expect that most of us want the government to have some input as to the dissemination of any material potentially considered as classified. But we also want to be confident that the government is being honest about the review process, and what it considers to be classified. There is simply no reason for anyone to believe Trump or Barr when it comes to the dissemination of Bolton's book. So Barr's use of the DOJ as nothing more than a political weapon has caused irreparable damage to the institution, and therefore, to the rule of law, because it has lost credibility in the eyes of the American public -- at least, to an increasing majority of us.

    My guess is that the next few weeks will resemble prior sagas involving former members of Trump's inner-circle who decide to flip on Trump. The anti-Trump crowd will favor Bolton's credibility over Trump/Barr's, which I believe more likely relate to the general distrust of Trump/Barr versus any particularly favorable views about Bolton. The pro-Trump crowd will favor Trump/Barr's credibility, and will point out the irony of leftists believing Bolton -- someone the left historically despises. And I suspect that a majority of people would agree that Bolton looks slimy for promoting his book instead of speaking up at a crucial moment in history.

    It is hard to analyze the Barr suit from a legal standpoint, because at the end of the day, the framing of the case boils down to credibility. If you believe Trump/Barr, then you likely view the DOJ suit against Bolton as an important attempt to protect our national security interests. If you don't believe Trump/Barr and view the suit as a pretext for political cover, then you likely think it's a "prior restraint" in violation of the 1st Amendment.

    With all of that in mind, I don't give the DOJ suit much of a chance to stop the Bolton book from coming out, and even if there's a delay, I expect it will be out before the election. I hope it comes out, assuming I am correct that the "classified information" dispute is just another Bill Barr Special. I won't be buying it either way, but I certainly want to know what else Trump and Barr so badly don't want us to know about.
     
    Last edited:
    If you look at the relief prayed for at the end of the lawsuit, the DOJ seeks to have the Court notify the publishers of the restraining order it seeks against Bolton pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) which binds officers, agents, etc. So if the restraining order is simply based on Bolton's violation of the NDA, then the Court could potentially bind the publishers as well. And the publishers are listed by name in the lawsuit as parties to be notified.

    Just as I'm typing this, all hell has broken loose on Twitter as major media appears to be reporting on the book extensively. So the toothpaste has apparently left the tube.

    The complaint asks for that, but it remains to be seen whether the writer/publisher relationship fits within the scope of 65(d)(2). Note that 65(d)(2)(C) is fairly broad ("active concert or participation" with a party.
     
    Should we start a new thread about the book's content separate from the law suit, or just have one mega-thread?
    Good question; the book's contents coming out renders half my original post irrelevant, and the other half is now very relevant to what's coming out.

    I just re-titled the thread Bolton's new Book, but if someone starts a new thread it won't bother me.
     

    The article said:
    The president was eager to avoid conflict with Xi because he needed a trade deal with China. Trump made bellicose rhetoric about Chinese trade practices central to his campaign, then promised to make a deal after he took office, but by 2019, he still hadn’t delivered. Now he was in a tough spot. In Bolton’s account, Trump, “pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win” reelection in 2020, asked for China to increase its purchases of American agricultural projects. Xi agreed.

    Trump’s willingness to prioritize his political fortunes was not limited to this one incident, but rather, Bolton writes, was part of a pattern: “Trump commingled the personal and the national not just on trade questions but across the whole field of national security. I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my White House tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations.”
     
    The pieces I've been seeing are devastating for Trump. I mean, approving of the concentration camps in NW China... is there a point at which people will stop defending him? I've asked myself this so many times, but there's got to be a limit, right?
     
    The pieces I've been seeing are devastating for Trump. I mean, approving of the concentration camps in NW China... is there a point at which people will stop defending him? I've asked myself this so many times, but there's got to be a limit, right?

    Bob Woodward is also coming out with a new book about Trump.
     
    Bob Woodward is also coming out with a new book about Trump.

    I'm trying to remember the interview he gave to CNN, but this will likely be as damaging as when Trump found out about it and called Woodward out, he offered to interview him for the book to set things straight. We all know how that turned out.
     
    Dude, come one. He got the job because he wrote an unsolicited op-ed piece that was like 20 pages long trashing the Mueller investigation and has done any and everything to further Trump's ideas while acting as his defense attorney. I know you aren't dumb, so you have to see the problem here.
    Eric Holder. Obama's 'wing man'? His words, not mine. Again, the problem is not unique to Trump.

    This clutching of pearls over Barr has been comical considering every single AG before November of 2016. I get it though. I really do. If I were the DNC, I too would attack Barr's creditably as often as possible.
     
    The pieces I've been seeing are devastating for Trump. I mean, approving of the concentration camps in NW China... is there a point at which people will stop defending him? I've asked myself this so many times, but there's got to be a limit, right?

    I really don't think there is any limit - at least not on corruption or misuse of power. The GOP in Congress are either carrying his banner with cult-like loyalty, or they're willing to disregard any and all of it.

    I do think that there's a segment of his support in 2016 that are disappointed and disapproving. Whether they will decide not to vote for him again is the million dollar question. My instinct says no, but who knows.
     
    I really don't think there is any limit - at least not on corruption or misuse of power. The GOP in Congress are either carrying his banner with cult-like loyalty, or they're willing to disregard any and all of it.

    I do think that there's a segment of his support in 2016 that are disappointed and disapproving. Whether they will decide not to vote for him again is the million dollar question. My instinct says no, but who knows.

    Trump could do a lot of damage if he gets another 4 years.
     

    Hmm. I'm suspect of that characterization.

    For example, it seems to me that accounts of an exchange between a president and a foreign leader regarding matters of national security could be classified without the government having to demonstrate (or "admit") that the account was true.
     
    Hey, I don’t claim to know, it just sounded reasonable. If you fabricate what was said between two leaders, then it’s not classified information. I mean, how could it be classified information if it is a lie, right? That just seems to make sense.

    Therefore, it’s only classified information if it is a true account, and it compromised national security?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom