Bolton's new Book (1 Viewer)

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:


    US soybean farmers have lost the Chinese market because of Trump.

    Excerpt:

    He stressed the importance of farmers and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome. I would print Trump’s exact words, but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.”

    The New York Times and Washington Post both published stories Wednesday by reporters who read the book, with the Post describing the memoir “as the most substantive, critical dissection of the president from an administration insider so far.” In a review, the New York Times said the book “toggles between two discordant registers: exceedingly tedious and slightly unhinged.”
     
    If you want to hear more discussion about the legal issues at play in the administration's claims regarding the Bolton book:

     
    I’m seeing a lot of talk on Twitter saying that DOJ cannot maintain that the book contains classified information without also admitting that it contains accurate information. Same lawyer I quoted earlier says they can maintain that parts are false but they will have to reveal at least to the court which parts are classified, and therefore true. Not that we would find out in that case, but it’s an admission that the whole thing wasn’t made up out of whole cloth.

    I also read that the book was previously okayed by someone in the Executive branch. Can’t remember who it was.
     
    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.



    I certainly hope fails in his effort to silence Bolton and his niece. Bob Woodward also has a new book coming out.

    Trump is a hot mess.. and I am desperately tired of him.

     
    @JimEverett - your instincts probably better than mine. Seems like there are supprted arguments by the administration. But also if the book is out there, if can’t be clawed back no matter how allegedly strong the government interest is.

    Thread
     
    I’m seeing a lot of talk on Twitter saying that DOJ cannot maintain that the book contains classified information without also admitting that it contains accurate information. Same lawyer I quoted earlier says they can maintain that parts are false but they will have to reveal at least to the court which parts are classified, and therefore true. Not that we would find out in that case, but it’s an admission that the whole thing wasn’t made up out of whole cloth.

    I also read that the book was previously okayed by someone in the Executive branch. Can’t remember who it was.

    It will be interesting to see how Trump’s people play this.

    I am not sure if Trump benefits much from denying each specific Bolton allegation. I can’t imagine many people believe him anyway — each of these Bolton anecdotes sounds so Trumpian it’s like you can picture him in the act. My guess is that he either creates some artificial distraction by doing something heinous, or comes up with a generic alternate story or rebuttal that doesn’t address specific allegations, but rather talks about Bolton being “disgraced” etc.

    This reminds me a bit of Ukraine where they tried initially to deny it factually, got obliterated on the facts, and pivoted to a nonsensical narrative about the democrats’ corruption and unlimited Article II power. There may have been republicans that actually believed the “no quid pro quo” lie they started with; seems really stupid if they necks out for him on the facts here. But I thought theyd for sure bail on Trump at “grab em by the *****” in October 2016, so my sense for the how low the bar goes is clearly not great.
     
    It will be interesting to see how Trump’s people play this.

    I am not sure if Trump benefits much from denying each specific Bolton allegation. I can’t imagine many people believe him anyway — each of these Bolton anecdotes sounds so Trumpian it’s like you can picture him in the act. My guess is that he either creates some artificial distraction by doing something heinous, or comes up with a generic alternate story or rebuttal that doesn’t address specific allegations, but rather talks about Bolton being “disgraced” etc.

    This reminds me a bit of Ukraine where they tried initially to deny it factually, got obliterated on the facts, and pivoted to a nonsensical narrative about the democrats’ corruption and unlimited Article II power. There may have been republicans that actually believed the “no quid pro quo” lie they started with; seems really stupid if they necks out for him on the facts here. But I thought theyd for sure bail on Trump at “grab em by the *****” in October 2016, so my sense for the how low the bar goes is clearly not great.

    Yep.. I thought the would bail out too. Evidently Trump isn't low enough yet.

    Kind of funny his telling the Chinese that Americans want him to serve more than two terms. Do you think Trump really believes his own lies?

     
    Post deleted.

    And Mary Trump and Bob Woodward. Poor Trump.

     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    @JimEverett - your instincts probably better than mine. Seems like there are supprted arguments by the administration. But also if the book is out there, if can’t be clawed back no matter how allegedly strong the government interest is.

    Thread

    Yes, having read this thread, I’ll backtrack from this 👇 because it is overly simplistic and may be misleading as to the merits of the government’s case.

    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.

    Zaid’s thread has convinced me that I was wrong in my belief that there was no merit to the classification position of the DOJ in this instance. According to Zaid, that may not matter at this point, but Bolton seems to be jumping the gun on an established review procedure, and I generally support the government’s ability to conduct legitimate reviews at multiple levels before this sort of book gets published. I maintain everything I said about Barr being Trump’s lackey, and I’m still not convinced that the review was legitimate here, but arguing that this particular case proves my broader point about Barr isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on right now.
     
    I don’t quite have the energy to read caselaw tonight but I’m curious about whether there’s a distinction between press receiving a copy classified material and choosing to release it in the public interest (i.e. pentagon papers) and a book publisher engaging an official to write memoirs about his time spent as National Security Advisor. Not sure but seems there may be a distinction - perhaps one that matters for the rule 65(d)(2)(C) question.

    As a threshold matter, if Simon & Schuster (a non-party) don’t meet the standards (I presume there are some but haven’t looked) to be considered in active concert or participation with an enjoined party (Bolton), then the court can’t enjoin the book release - even if the court could reach declarations about Bolton’s alleged breach of material treatment agreements he signed.
     
    So from what I’ve heard Bolton’s big bombshell was that Trump didn’t want to go to war with Iran over the drone that was shot down because he didn’t think it would be proportional. Well I guess I shouldn’t even go vote now because that seals it for Biden.
     
    So from what I’ve heard Bolton’s big bombshell was that Trump didn’t want to go to war with Iran over the drone that was shot down because he didn’t think it would be proportional. Well I guess I shouldn’t even go vote now because that seals it for Biden.
    I'm nearly positive that that story was already out there.
     
    I have very little respect for Bolton and others like him

    Trump maybe a dangerous melagomaniac, but those who enable him are worse. They know what they do are wrong and yet for many personal reason they continue to support his actions.
     

    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