Impeachment

What Would John Bolton Say About Trump's Ukraine Policy?

If I were Trump, I would not want to find out.

|

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) wants four current and former administration officials to testify during Donald Trump's impeachment trial next month. One of them is John Bolton, the former national security adviser, whose name is mentioned 129 times in the House Judiciary Committee's report charging the president with abusing his powers for personal gain. Bolton, who has publicly stated he has relevant information to share, could shed light on Trump's motives for withholding military aid to Ukraine and putting off a White House meeting with that country's president, although it's not clear he was privy to any incriminating statements by Trump himself.

Bolton declined to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about Trump's dealings with Ukraine, citing White House opposition. But Bolton, who was never subpoenaed, said he was prepared to testify if a court sided with Congress in its conflict with his former boss. In a letter to the House's general counsel last month, Bolton's lawyer said he "was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far."

A few weeks later, Bolton complained on Twitter that the White House had "refused to return access to my personal Twitter account" after his resignation in September, possibly "out of fear of what I may say." It's not clear that Bolton was referring specifically to Ukraine, as opposed to his broader complaints about an insufficiently hawkish foreign policy. Four days after that, Bolton tweeted that "our country's commitment to our national security priorities is under attack from within," a comment that is also open to interpretation, especially since he added that "America is distracted," which sounds like a knock against the impeachment inquiry.

For his part, Trump claims Bolton's testimony—which he opposed, ostensibly in defense of presidential prerogatives—would have vindicated him. "John Bolton is a patriot and may know that I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, & I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren't putting up money also," Trump tweeted on the same day that Bolton worried about "our national security priorities." But it is doubtful that Bolton's testimony would be helpful to Trump. Here are some of the points described in the House Judiciary Committee's report that Bolton would be able to confirm, dispute, or clarify:

• Bolton attended a July 10 meeting that included two senior Ukrainian officials; Secretary of Energy Rick Perry; Kurt Volker, then the U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations; Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union; Fiona Hill, then a Russia specialist on the National Security Council (NSC); and Alexander Vindman, the NSC's director for European affairs. Hill and Vindman testified that Sondland brought up investigations of purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election and former Vice President Joe Biden's alleged efforts to protect his son Hunter from a probe of Burisma, an energy company that employed the younger Biden as a board member. Those are the investigations that Trump would ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to conduct during their much-scrutinized July 25 phone call.

• After Bolton left that meeting, Hill testified, Sondland told the remaining participants he and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had agreed that a White House meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy would happen only after the Ukrainian government publicly committed to those investigations. When Hill reported that conversation to Bolton, she testified, he instructed her to tell the NSC's legal adviser that "I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this."

• William Taylor, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, testified that Bolton opposed Trump's July 25 call with Zelenskiy, worrying that "it was going to be a disaster" because "there could be some talk of investigations or worse."

• For months, Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, had been lobbying the Ukrainian government to investigate Burisma and the Bidens in the hope of uncovering "information [that] will be very, very helpful to my client," presumably because Joe Biden is a leading contender to oppose Trump in next year's presidential election. Bolton reportedly resented Giuliani's involvement in negotiations with Ukraine. According to Hill, Bolton said "nobody should be meeting with Giuliani" and repeatedly described him as a "hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up."

• Bolton was reportedly dismayed by Trump's decision to delay $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine. "Sometime prior to August 16," Bolton met with Trump to discuss the hold on military aid. Tim Morrison, then the NSC's top Russia official, testified that Trump told Bolton he was not yet prepared to deliver the money. The reason Trump gave, if any, is obviously relevant to the allegation that he abused his power in an effort to discredit a political rival.

• Taylor testified that Bolton urged him to send an August 29 cable to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in which he complained about the "folly" of "withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian government." Taylor said he "could not and would not defend such a policy."

• Morrison testified that he twice discussed with Bolton what he understood to be a quid pro quo between the military support and the investigations Trump wanted. One of those conversations followed a September 1 meeting at which Sondland (according to his own testimony) told a senior Zelenskiy adviser "the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement [about the investigations] that we had been discussing for many weeks." Morrison said he reported that exchange to Bolton, who told him to "make sure the [NSC's] lawyers are tracking" the situation.

• Bolton resigned as national security adviser on September 10. It's not clear what role, if any, Trump's Ukraine policy played in his resignation.

Bolton's opposition to the hold on military aid shows he did not agree it was justified by legitimate concerns about official corruption in Ukraine, as Trump maintains. That does not necessarily mean Bolton has direct evidence of a quid pro quo, although his reference to "many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed" is certainly intriguing.

Similarly, Bolton's frustration with Giuliani's involvement could have stemmed from policy disagreements and resentment that Giuliani was undercutting the NSC's role, as opposed to a belief that the president was perverting foreign policy to serve domestic political interests. A misguided or haphazard foreign policy is not the same as a corrupt foreign policy. But if the testimony by Hill, Morrison, and Taylor is accurate, Bolton believed that the "favor" Trump wanted from Zelenskiy was inappropriate and that tying it to the military aid was potentially illegal.

If I were Trump, I would not want to hear what Bolton has to say. And since Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has said he plans to conduct Trump's trial however Trump wants, we probably won't.

NEXT: If You Think Encryption Back Doors Won't Be Abused, You May Be a Member of Congress

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bolton’s opposition to the hold on military aid shows he did not agree it was justified by legitimate concerns about official corruption in Ukraine, as Trump maintains. That does not necessarily mean Bolton has direct evidence of a quid pro quo, although his reference to “many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed” is certainly intriguing.

    Similarly, Bolton’s frustration with Giuliani’s involvement could have stemmed from policy disagreements and resentment that Giuliani was undercutting the NSC’s role, as opposed to a belief that the president was perverting foreign policy to serve domestic political interests. A misguided or haphazard foreign policy is not the same as a corrupt foreign policy. But if the testimony by Hill, Morrison, and Taylor is accurate, Bolton believed that the “favor” Trump wanted from Zelenskiy was inappropriate and that tying it to the military aid was potentially illegal.

    So the entire rest of the article is a giant waste of time speculating about things that you admit are likely not true. How about you say that up front so the reader doesn’t waste his time?

    1. “JACOB SULLUM”

      It’s on the tin.

    2. There is also the fact that the money for the javelin system was never held up. But fan fiction impeachments are the in thing these days.

      1. We are talking about Aid that ended up being given and an investigation that never happened. Fan fiction is a good term for it.

        1. Yeah but it was 3 days from being late. Which is basically the same as being late.

          1. Which deadline was only made after discovery of the aid being withheld, and by a bipartisan effort to rush it out.

          2. This is even dumber than most things Pod says. Congrats neutral mike.

            Did you even bother to read the OMB memo last week? Compare delays to lebanon and other aid packages to south america?

        2. Actually, about $20 million of it hasn’t been delivered yet.

          1. Poor neutral mikey.

            Its almost like the Executive Branch has no power if the Legislative Branch gets to pass laws AND tell the Executive Branch what to do.

            Funny that reason never remembers how mighty Obama’s Executive pen and phone were.

      2. The aid was released right after the white house found out about the whistleblower complaint. Just another innocent coincidence I’m sure. Any more intellectually dishonest Republican talking points you want to parrot you authoritarian clown?

        1. Any evidence of it being anything but normal or are we to take conjecture as fact for DNC talking points like jourolists do?

    3. So, the President Ukraine says he wasn’t aware of the “threat” and, in the event, the aid was delivered on time. Where’s the story?

      1. False on both counts. The aid was late, the Ukrainians knew it was late (they asked where it was), and only a Trump supporter could be stupid enough to not comprehend the threat on the phone call.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/timeline-how-trump-withheld-aid-ukraine-is-less-clear-than-you-might-think/

  2. Bolton disagreed with the president on foreign policy. So what? Do you seriously think that Bolton’s opinion is going to change anybody’s mind?

    1. Why not? If I knew absolutely nothing about an issue and heard that Bolton had an opinion on it, I would naturally assume that the opposite position was the correct one.

      1. You have a point.

    2. And reason hates Bolton and has for years. Yet, somehow Bolton disagreeing with Trump on foreign policy is a bad thing.

      1. B/c Orange Man Bad!

      2. My jaw dropped to the floor as I read this article. I know the staff at Reason have been willing to twist themselves into a Gordian Knot and support all sorts of previously-untrustworthy federal employees in order to get rid of that uncouth Orange Man, but John Bolton? John Freaking Bolton?

        1. Bolton is on the Reason shitlist for being a hawk, not for being untrustworthy.

          1. I completely trust Bolton when he says that the president disagreed with his policy preferences. Why should I care?

            1. I for one think an excellent leadership strategy is to not be surrounded by sycophants and get some opposing strategies to make informed decisions.

              reason likes yes men which is why the articles here are shit.

              1. I agree. In fact, that’s common in business, and I think Trump explicitly said that’s how he hires. That is, he doesn’t share the progressive belief that if he just hires the best, he can simply follow expert advice and all will be well.

    3. I am confidant, for sure, to a metaphysical certainty that when Bolton and Sullum’s vision conflict Sullum will not see that as an opportunity for introspection.

    4. Remember when Bolton pressured the head of the OPCW to support claims of WMDs in Iraq by threatening his family?

      Dude is totes trustworthy

    5. It’s almost as if Bolton is a witness and possibly key player who knows exactly what and how things transpired. You know, the type of guy you might want to talk to if you are interested in the truth. Trump supporters are not interested in the truth, so they have to paint anyone interested in hearing from Bolton or Mulvaney, etc. as inconsistent.

      1. More retarded fan fiction.

      2. Bolton: more or less corrupt than Shokin?

  3. Here’s loser hack reporter Glenn Greenwald talking smack about the Trump investigation and the FISA warrant.

    Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI’s gross abuse of its power – its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence, and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.

    1. But the revelations of the IG Report are not merely a massive FBI scandal. They are also a massive media scandal, because they reveal that so much of what the U.S. media has authoritatively claimed about all of these matters for more than two years is completely false.

      1. Part of the scam was to feed misinformation to the media and then use the resulting media reports as justification for the FISA warrant. The media was neck deep in the entire thing.

        1. US media is about as credible as Pravda used to be. May as well consider them part of the global cabal. They have been willing partners with the CIA, an unconstitutional secret army, in planting false stories. Even the New York Times prepped the US public for support of the illegal war on Iraq by printing fabricated stories about Saddam Hussein and Iraq having MWDs.
          This is nothing new, media was used to whip hysteria to get the US into world war 1 by printing fabricated atrocities supposedly committed by the Germans. The Germans could not defend themselves as England cut all the underwater communications cables. The same in world war 2 and false stories to get the people behind the war in Vietnam.
          Bolton is a crazy Zio war monger, a chicken hawk, who likes to send your kids to war but not his. Makes one wonder why Trump decided to choose this rabid mad hatter.

    2. And reason has nothing to say about any of it other than “the Republicans supported FISA so they were asking for it” or something.

      1. You should read the whole article. Glenn doesn’t pull any punches in it.

        1. I have read it. I have never been a fan of Greenwald but I have to give credit where credit is due. He has shown an amazing amount of integrity on this issue and has really stood up for the truth. His integrity and willingness to tell the truth stands in stark contrast to the rest of the major media including reason.

          1. Greenwald has been one of a handful of honest principled reporters since Trump was elected. He was an expert on the deep state before most people had ever heard the term and he knew that Trump was a serious threat to them and that they would try to take him out. He’s a hardcore lefty but never got the TDS because he sees a much larger threat and as it happens, Trump is exposing it.

            1. Never fails to make me laugh out loud when people simultaneously describe the deep state as massively powerful deeply entrenched career intelligence officials, but then would have to be comically inept amateurs when they tried to “overthrow” Trump, with the Russia crap being the best they could do. LOL. Trump isn’t trying to interfere with the TLAs, so the deep state wouldn’t give a shit about him.

          2. Greenwald is a ‘news lib’ I can actually respect. I don’t agree with his political viewpoint at all, but his articles are damned good reads. He has a lot of work on digital privacy that is worth reading.

        2. Glenn should have added something about the actual FISA courts as well. Their behavior during all of this has been equally shameful.

          Imagine what would happen if your local magistrate or county court judge got wind that you had serially bullshitted him. Before you could blink you’d be in a cell at county waiting for your one chance to explain yourself before him.

          These people have revealed themselves as well upholstered rubber stamps, not judges.

          1. That none of the ‘civil libertarian’ authors here at Reason have addressed this angle is likewise telling.

            1. Didn’t Judge Nap address this?

              Sorry, you said civil libertarians, not TDS-riddled cranks.

    3. Why can a lefty like Greenwald see through this shit but the libertarians at Reason are determined to carry water for #resistance?

      1. Greenwald may be on the left, but he’s honest. That’s why he sees through this with such clarity.

        1. I agree.

      2. It can be true simultaneously that both the FBI and The Donald are complete fucktards. The fact that Greenwald is clearly and accurately calling out the FBI does not in any way inform you at all about the gravity (or possibly lack there-of) of The Donald’s actions vis-a-vis Ukraine.

        1. Of course it can be true, but for both to be true, both have to have evidence. One comes with clear evidence, the other does not. It’s all based on the false claims of the first.

          1. And some of us don’t get all twisted about what he’s alleged to have done, because even if the allegations were 100% accurate there’s no wrongdoing.
            Investigating what appears to be a clear case of prior corruption by the previous administration is absolutely in Americans’ interests, and pretty much the president’s duty

          2. Yeah, the evidence is clear that the FBI and the Obama administration abused their power and committed illegal acts. There is no evidence that Trump did.

  4. This article is an embarrassment even by Sullum standards.

  5. Who gives a shit what John Bolton would say? He’s never said anything intelligent in his life.

    1. Any rhetorical port in an orange storm…

      1. Nice.

  6. “Needs more bombs”. It’s not that hard to guess, that’s what Bolton thinks about everything.

  7. any work citing Sondland as source is fraudulent.

    1. Just want to make sure. Are we now taking the position that Sondland is an unreliable witness? Sounds like a reasonable evaluation of Sondland, but we all be consistent in that view.

      1. Considering his testimony was that everything he said was his opinion and he has been quite clear he was never told by anybody to leverage Ukraine…

        But we know neutral mike, trump has to be guilty of something.

        1. I presume Mike Laursen is guilty of molesting children

        2. Still waiting for ‘Neutral Mike’ to tell us what a legitimate would look like, and how POTUS Trump could ask for an investigation without appearing inappropriate (meaning, just how would he ask for that in a way that satisfies Neutral man).

          Naturally, like most other ‘stealth libs’, he can’t produce jack-shit. What a surprise.

  8. The lunatic fringe, and apparently this myopic writer, suddenly yearns to hear from silent voices, but not because-as they pretend-they will unleash some epiphany. ( I assure you that Bolton, for example, will disappoint, except to say we ought to give nukes to anyone and everyone who dislikes Vladimir.)

    Instead, the desire for more testimony ( by those not named Mr. Whistleblower) is a tacit admission that what’s been heard so far is political noise and ain’t within light years of justifying impeachment.

    1. we can hear the footsteps.

  9. Trump is afraid because he honestly doesn’t know what Bolton will do. Trump’s “high crimes” are clear.

    Will Bolton be consistent with that story as laid out by every single witness who has testified, including Trump crony and millionaire donor Sondland (Trump should probably be impeached just for giving a donor with no qualifications an ambassadorship to the EU)? Or will Bolton, a dyed-in-the-wool archconservative be loyal to Trump and the GOP?

    Trump honestly doesn’t know because he and Bolton disagreed strongly over policy. Bolton wants war with everyone, whereas Trump is afraid of looking bad with a foreign military conflict, and he’s at least smart enough to that on that front he’s really out of his element. And Trump treated Bolton like crap, particularly with his dismissal, and because Trump is one of the pettiest people on the planet he fears personal betrayal more than he does policy blunders.

    1. You’re a terrible sock.

      1. And you’re a terrible person. Care to address the topic?

        1. What topic? Nothing he said was valid in any sense baby jeffrey. Just like above, nothing you’ve said is valid.

          You’re as worthless a sock as he is

    2. “Trump should probably be impeached just for giving a donor with no qualifications an ambassadorship to the EU)?”

      1) Ambassadors are appointed de jure after senate approval alone, no bonafides required (see Appointments clause);
      2) they are often appointed de facto via mere donations or political linkage; e.g., Caroline Kennedy to Japan by Obama.

      1. Pretty much all ambassadors to first world countries we have good relationships with are a result of trading in political favors. Those posts are considered rewards. People of with any experience or competence are found in the posts no sane person would want.

    3. Would that be the same witnesses who said they hadn’t heard the phone call, but felt that there was a quid pro quo?

  10. John Bolton would say Trump’s Ukraine Policy was not hawkish enough, but then he would say Attila The Hun’s Asian and Europeans policies where not hawkish enough.

    1. Funny. Reminds me of erstwhile NH governor Meldrim Thompson ( ultra conservative.) Upon learning that protestors were in the NH streets over some pedestrian cause, he allegedly recommended that the national guard arm itself with nuclear warheads to address the matter.

      I don’t know if he cloned Bolton,

    2. Agreed. But he would still be a witness I would like to hear from on the impeachment accusations.

      It ain’t gonna happen, though. Bolton might well put it all in his upcoming book.

  11. What is the motivation, other than politics, for either side to not allow material witnesses to testify? Bolton, the whistle blower, anyone with legitimate information on the 2 charges should testify and face cross-examination. This is going to the equivalent of a trial in the Senate. We should advocate for finding out the truth.

    1. For one, there isnt a crime. Two there is still executive privilege.

      1. So you’re not interested in finding out the truth?

        1. “So you’re not interested in finding out the truth?”
          Non sequitur. The essence of our due process concept is to put the horse before the cart; that is, being charged with a crime must precede its examination.

          Stalin favored the reverse-find the man, then affix his crime-but we in the states, courtesy of the Framers, opted for goofy stuff like rule of law and due process.

          That this impeachment is political and not criminal doesn’t mean the democrats can ignore those principles, except they did. They clearly can’t find a crime, which is why they’ve airbrushed this impeachment charade with the general accusations of abuse of power and obstruction of congress.

          Only in Never-Never Land or in the twisted psyche of the radical left are those things actual crimes. Nor do they satisfy the constitution’s impeachment criteria. That’s sort of a problem. Indeed, they are little more than doublespeak for, “we just don’t like the guy. “

          Find a crime first. Then we can deal with its truth.

        2. Nobody is interested in the truth. It is all politics here.

          Likewise even if everything established by the DNC is true, it still isnt a crime. Information is never a crime. The Biden issue was known on 2016, before trump even asked the Ukraine. Trump in the call asked him to work with Barr, an investigation into Origins of crossfire hurricane had already been opened. Per the OMB memo nothing unusual had occurred and Lebanon and others had similar delays.

          There is literally nothing of interest to be found out except for dumbfucks with impeachment fantasies who have been spouting emoluments and other nonsense for 3 years.

        3. Leo Kovalensky II
          December.16.2019 at 9:20 pm
          So you’re not interested in finding out the truth?

          Lol.
          Who cares?
          The truth of Trump’s actions are undisputed.
          What is being questioned is Trump’s motive.
          And I really don’t give a shit what a bunch of butthurt apparatchiks think.

          What is much more important to the country is discovering the treasonous weaponization of executive agencies and their attempts to manipulate and corrupt elections. Further, we’d benefit from Americans learning the truth behind our hostile approach to Russia, propaganda regarding “their” election interference, and the 2013-2014 Euromaidan coup in Ukraine that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

          But it seems Leo here would rather pretend standard diplomacy be thoroughly dissected as if it were something nefarious.

        4. Do you think you’re actually going to get the truth out of this? What part of the last 3 years has made you think any of the media is going to give you the truth?

        5. So you’re tossing out all normal legal protections and process in your demented crusade to destroy the President? There are avenues for investigation or producing testimony that the DNC hasn’t even attempted in this process as they’ve already judged him guilty on election night.

      2. If Congress is given the power to interrogate executive officials/staff, up to and including the president’s closest advisers, over anything and everything, then we no longer have 3 coequal branches with checks and balances – we’d have legislative tyranny like the UK.

    2. You shouldn’t have witnesses when the president isn’t even accused is impeachable offenses.

    3. As you can read here, Trump apologists have already made up their minds that Trump is an innocent victim being framed by the Deep State, and don’t want to hear any evidence otherwise.

      1. He may well be a guilty victim of a set up. Just because you’re a pimp doesn’t mean it’s ok for the police to frame you for murdering prostitutes.

        And if they’re caught lying, fabricating evidence, etc to try and catch you, you should walk free. As repulsive as that might be to some people.

        1. Indeed.

          Of course, what Trump is accused of doing is not wrong.

      2. Neutral mike is getting into Pod level retardation.

      3. By the way neutral mike… weve had 3 years now of fact finding to turn up nothing. Eventually it is just throwing shit at retards to see what they eat up. You’re the retard in this metaphor.

        You’re arguing for no 4th amendment protections, endless investigations and political criminalization.

        Nobody cares what you think because of your stance.

        1. He really is retarded.

      4. Mike Laursen
        December.16.2019 at 8:51 pm
        As you can read here, Trump apologists have already made up their minds that Trump is an innocent victim being framed by the Deep State, and don’t want to hear any evidence otherwise.

        Mike Laursen is apparently of the opinion that 3+ years of boundless investigation into the man, including attempts to frame him, is not evidence that Trump is relatively innocent of all the things you fantasize about and your idols are indeed guilty of.
        The evidence is overwhelming and in direct opposition to Mike’s feelings.

        1. But, but. but…..he’s neutral! 🙂

          1. naw. He’s just a bitch.

      5. Wait, you think there is evidence? What would that be beyond conjecture and presumptions held together by the unsupported imposition of bad faith motives with no consideration for legitimate motives? We’re waiting.

  12. “One of those conversations followed a September 1 meeting at which Sondland (according to his own testimony) told a senior Zelenskiy adviser “the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement [about the investigations] that we had been discussing for many weeks.”
    Yeah but the “advisor” says it never happened.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/473875-top-zelensky-aide-refutes-sondland-testimony
    Maybe you should do your homework Jacob instead of just cutting and pasting Democrat propaganda. You’re getting played again just like with Mueller and FISA.

    1. At best, that ends up as a “he said-she said” conflict in stories, not a refutation of testimony from sworn witnesses in the hearings. The Ukraine officials may be afraid to tell the truth because they would burn bridges with the Trump Administration.

      1. God you’re pathetic. The witness is untruthful because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Neutral mike with the ignorant arguments.

      2. The Truth?

        Can we start with Joe Biden is a crook?

  13. I think the American people should be impeached for electing such a clown car of officials on both sides of the aisle.

    1. But then nobody could ever run for public office again. I like the way you think.

    2. Sounds good.

  14. Roundup? Anyone?

  15. Fuck john bolton and his neocon warmongering agenda. I dont guve two shits what that blood soaked lying monster has to say about anything.

  16. A few weeks later, Bolton complained on Twitter that the White House had “refused to return access to my personal Twitter account”

    Hmm, maybe don’t use personal Twitter accounts for government work-related things? Then the government doesn’t get to tell Twitter to take it away from you.

  17. If Trump is so confident Bolton will exonerate him, why doesn’t he waive his executive privilege claim?

    Doesn’t matter either way, Bolton could say “Trump told me he was withholding aid to coerce an announcement of an investigation into Biden to help with 2020” and Trump would still claim he was totally exonerated and Republicans would still not give a shit. Just look at the Republicans in this comment section, thinking Trump’s hand picked EU ambassador, VP, chief of staff, personal lawyer, and others, were all in on a plan to demand a quid pro quo, all working together on it despite poor innocent Trump having no idea and only being concerned with corruption, in a selfless patriotic way entirely unrelated to 2020.

    As your God Emporer would say, Sad!

    1. Most people here aren’t Republicans, demsock.

      Funny how all of you Never Trumper resistance people are all sucking the dicks of people like Bolton, Brennan, and Clapper now. Meanwhile the rest of us are pointing out that they’ve always been lying garbage humans and were doing so since Bush and Obama.

    2. fafalone,

      You left out an important part.

      Joe Biden is a crook.

  18. Personally, I don’t think Amb. Bolton will testify to anything that would help the impeachment process. He despises Congressional Team D. Are you freaking kidding me?

    Amb. Bolton is an experienced Swamp Thing. He is making Team D go to Court to compel his testimony. Part of this is to run out the clock. Part of this is to twist a lot of different tails. None of this will ultimately matter.

    POTUS Trump will not be removed from office.

    1. my thoughts as well. We’ve got the CNBC market channel on in my office every day, and when you’ve got the investors saying straight out that there’s no need to panic because impeachment’s not going to happen, I think it’s safe to say Team D’s lost.

      1. Team D’s lost.

        +79 3/8

  19. When I saw that headline it was obvious what Bolton would say. He could throw darts at a map and demand military occupation of anyplace the dart landed. Trump was stupid for hiring and wised up in firing him. I really don’t care what the war monger Bolton has to say. Good riddance.

  20. John Bolton is a deranged, murderous, psychopathic war-monger and war criminal. The worst this country has to offer.

  21. What Would John Bolton Say About Trump’s Ukraine Policy?

    Joe Biden is a crook.

    What else do I have for Sullum?

    Addiction is a symptom of PTSD. Says Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine Eric Kandel in his book, “The Disordered Mind.”

  22. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.bocsci.com/3-acetoxy-11-ursen-28-13-olide-cas-35959-08-1-item-179599.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.