Bolton's new Book (2 Viewers)

[TaylorB]

By Taylor Bassett - Staff Writer | @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:

The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun

By Laura BassettAfter months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry...

madaboutpolitics.com

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:

Trump helping Erdogan / Turkey via Barr

This Trump-Turkey story won’t go away. The 2nd tweet in the thread has a crazy quote from the CNN article:There’s something strange going on with Trump and Erdogan. Back in December of 2018, Trump suddenly unilaterally announces our plans for an immediate withdrawal from Syria after a phone...

madaboutpolitics.com

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:

Bolton rips Trump: ‘Getting reelected was the only thing that mattered’

The former national security adviser also argues in a new memoir that Trump took a series of actions that might warrant impeachment.

www.politico.com

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.

 

[Maxp]

Bolton joined Trump's staff most likely because he probably believed he could finally get his war with Iran due to Trump's heavy criticism of the Iran deal.

 

[TaylorB]

The request to ask Xi for help as well as supporting his concentration camps for the Uighurs is quite damning. I mean, that's another level of heinous. I definitely believe the former, because he's done it before. As for the latter, I believe it to be the case, as well, as a matter of political expediency. Tell Xi what he wants to hear - but it's still a helluva thing to say as anyone, much less POTUS

There could be more to the Uighur concentration camps than Trump not wanting to ruffle Xi's feathers; Erik Prince's company was doing 10+ figure deals for "training services" in NW China when these concentration camps were being built, and there have been allegations (thus far yet to be proven) that he's involved in the construction or training of security for the camps. He's a big Trump donor and advisor, and is behind some covert ops involving mercenaries in that general area of the world, and elsewhere. And he's Betsy Duvos' brother, because of course he is.

But it's still kind of splitting hairs on the scale of evil. Like, it's obviously a way bigger deal if there's some connection between Trump's circle and the camps, but at a minimum, the leader of the free world didn't confront Xi and instead supported him putting religious minorities into concentration camps.

Or if we assume that's untrue, at least we'd then think the needle on his moral compass lands somewhere between "leaving wife with newborn and cheating on her with a pornstar and paying hush money to influence an election" and "approving of concentration camps for religious and ethnic persecution." Reminiscing on Bolton struggling to think of anything he's done that wasn't geared toward his reelection, it's really hard to imagine a scenario where he'd be offered illicit help to win an election that he wouldn't jump on, then deny in perpetuity, especially if there were real estate deals -- like, the biggest of his life -- being dangled in front of him. GOP leadership acts like they don't see this, but they sure understand the importance of using his properties when they hold events. His whole presidency is "the Art of the Self-Deal."

 

[TaylorB]

Bolton joined Trump's staff most likely because he probably believed he could finally get his war with Iran due to Trump's heavy criticism of the Iran deal.

I'm still not sure we're out of the woods on an Iran conflict. Depends on what KSA and UAE want Trump to do in the next 4.5 months. If he gets re-elected I'm all in on it happening.

 

[SaintForLife]

Some parts of his book are probably true, but I wouldn't be putting much faith in his book for truthfulness.

 

[efil4]

Some parts of his book are probably true, but I wouldn't be putting much faith in his book for truthfulness.

the "best" people.

Now that he has turned on Trump, this is the new tact.

The fact remains, he printed everything that he knew to be true. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you. But he is here, telling you that diplomats lie, and its ONLY NOW an issue because he wrote a book that paints POTUS as an idiotic child. ( some of us already knew this tho )

 

[Lapaz]

What exactly is this going to accomplish now? The cats already out of the bag. The information is out, that's the most damaging part?

On Bolten, I won't be buying the book. I doubt anything he says in it would surprise me about Trump since I already know who the guy is. I can read the most salacious stuff in media reports.

If he really cared about America, he would have said something when it actually mattered most. But that goes of the whole of this administration and their all of their Republican coharts.

Bolton probably didn't release this book because he cared about America, but there is value in releasing the book this close to the election. It serves to remind Americans of how awful Trump is, because memories are short.

 

[efil4]

Trump admin loses request to block release.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Trump admin loses request to block release.

Now comes the question of whether he can actually benefit from it.

 

[SaintForLife]

Apparently the judge did think there were legitimate concerns about classified information on Bolton's book.

 

[CoolBrees]

So that would make it true though right?

can’t have classified lies.

 

[SaintForLife]

So that would make it true though right?

can’t have classified lies.

That's a popular Democratic talking point going around now, but it's not true. You can have part of a paragraph that contains some classified information while some sentences in that same paragraph that aren't true.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That's a popular Democratic talking point going around now, but it's not true. You can have part of a paragraph that contains some classified information while some sentences in that same paragraph that aren't true.

Are you making the distinction between part of a paragraph being classified and other parts of that same paragraph being untrue?

 

[CoolBrees]

Can you illustrate what that would look like?

 

[SaintForLife]

Are you making the distinction between part of a paragraph being classified and other parts of that same paragraph being untrue?

It's a book and not a flyer. There can be a mixture of true and false opinion throughout multiple chapters. I don't see anyone claiming the entire book is classified. I'm sure there are only portions that are classified. The rest of the book could be a mixture of both true and false opinion.

 

[TaylorB]

Some parts of his book are probably true, but I wouldn't be putting much faith in his book for truthfulness.

During impeachment, we had a lot of back-and-forth over whether Bolton actually stated outright that Trump connected the Ukraine aid to an investigation into Biden. I’ve quoted excerpts of that discussion below, which centered on the NYT article claiming Bolton directly connected aid to an investigation.

Tonight on his ABC interview, Bolton said “Well he directly linked the provision of that assistance with the investigation [into the Bidens].” So that should put to rest the suggestion that the NYT article was possibly false or misleading or I sufficiently sourced.

I watched Bolton’s interview and I think he misses the mark on some key issues, but I believed him to be telling the truth as to the factual allegations. Would you agree, SFL, that the NTY article was likely accurate, and do you think Bolton is telling the truth about the Ukraine aid being tied to investigations?



quotes from prior discussion

According to the NYTIMES article, Bolton isn't saying Trump connected the Ukraine aide to opening a probe on Burisma/Biden. Bolton said Trump wanted Ukraine to turn over "all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine."

The first sentence of the article says that Bolton said Trump connected Ukraine aid to an investigation:

That's what the writers allege, but I didn't see a quote from Bolton in the article that states that Trump connected the aid to an investigation. The article goes into detail on a couple of topics from the book, but no detail on the main allegation. Also the fact that the anonymous source for the article hasn't even seen the book and it comes out right when the Democrats were desperate for leverage is more reason to be skeptical.

But I still stand by what I said. The first paragraph of the article conveniently left out part of what Bolton said which seems to undercut the the claim.

I'd wager that the manuscript says what the NYT article says it does. I don't think the NYT or any other media outlet is perfect, but I can't imagine this story would've been printed without very intense scrutiny and vetting, particularly given the fact that the book's inevitable publication would disprove any inaccuracies so easily.

 

[SaintForLife]

During impeachment, we had a lot of back-and-forth over whether Bolton actually stated outright that Trump connected the Ukraine aid to an investigation into Biden. I’ve quoted excerpts of that discussion below, which centered on the NYT article claiming Bolton directly connected aid to an investigation.

Tonight on his ABC interview, Bolton said “Well he directly linked the provision of that assistance with the investigation [into the Bidens].” So that should put to rest the suggestion that the NYT article was possibly false or misleading or I sufficiently sourced.

I watched Bolton’s interview and I think he misses the mark on some key issues, but I believed him to be telling the truth as to the factual allegations. Would you agree, SFL, that the NTY article was likely accurate, and do you think Bolton is telling the truth about the Ukraine aid being tied to investigations?



quotes from prior discussion

Bolton wanted to wait until after the impeachment trial to reveal this information instead of testifying under oath. If it was all true, you would think that he wouldn't have had a problem testifying under oath. Color me skeptical especially when Bolton admitted in the past that he would lie to protest national security interests.

 

[wardorican]

Bolton dismisses Trump's tough talk on China: 'No telling' what deal he'd take if reelected

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and ahead of the November presidential election, President Donald Trump has escalated his intense rhetoric against the Chinese government. "Xi Jinping would be right up there with (Russia's Vladimir) Putin in his ability to look at Donald Trump and say...

www.yahoo.com

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and ahead of the November presidential election, President Donald Trump has escalated his intense rhetoric against the Chinese government. But his former national security adviser John Bolton said that his harsh words mask a softness on China and a penchant for its president, Xi Jinping.

"Xi Jinping would be right up there with (Russia's Vladimir) Putin in his ability to look at Donald Trump and say, 'This is somebody that we can move ultimately on our side,'" Bolton told ABC News in an exclusive interview.

After spending 17 months at Trump's side, Bolton characterized the president as full of empty words and at times lies, willing to put his personal relationship with Xi ahead of the country's interests and easily marked and manipulated by foreign adversaries.

It's "a pattern quite contrary to the image (Trump) would like to convey -- of a decisive president who knows something about what he's doing. There really isn't any guiding principle that I was able to discern other than what's good for Donald Trump's reelection," Bolton told ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz. "This is a danger for the republic."

In particular, Bolton argued that Trump took steps to avoid insulting or offending Xi as he pursued "the great white whale of the Trump administration, the big trade deal with China."

Pretty much sounds like what most of us feel about the man. A lot of bluster, undoes most of it, has no singular policy goals, other than 'winning'.

 

[Saintamaniac]

There can be a mixture of true and false opinion throughout multiple chapters.

Is this something new that has been introduced on the literary scene? What is a false opinion? How can someone's opinion be false?