Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 27, 2020

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton claims that, contrary to President Trump's denials, the president said outright that he was blocking aid to Ukraine unless Ukrainian officials helped with investigations into the Bidens.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Would like the Dems to call Tiffany Trump (the most innocent of Orange Adolf's children) to the witness stand. Why? If you want Hunter Biden (someone else that has nothing to with Orange Adolf's crimes) that will be the condition.

#1 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-01-28 02:17 AM | Reply

Trump is wrong - Bolton is not doing this to sell a book. He is doing this because he is a piece of trash Neocon that cannot allow an America First policy. Trump never should have brought this piece of trash into the White House and I said that on the day he took the position.

"Would like the Dems to call Tiffany Trump (the most innocent of Orange Adolf's children) to the witness stand.
#1 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON"

Why? How much did Burisma pay her? The Dem fear over that piece of trash Hunter Biden testifying is funny. They will go to any length to hide their corruption. No Dems want the public to figure out how they all enter office poor and leave multi-millionaires on a government salary. Sorry Dems - you lit this fire and now you are going to burn.

#2 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-28 03:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"Trump is wrong - Bolton is not doing this to sell a book. He is doing this because he is a piece of trash Neocon that cannot allow an America First policy. Trump never should have brought this piece of trash into the White House and I said that on the day he took the position."

That is an utterly ridiculous comment. Bolton has spent his career supporting Israel/America First, long before Trump ever thought of it.

"Why? How much did Burisma pay her? The Dem fear over that piece of trash Hunter Biden testifying is funny."

But none of that justifies withholding military aid for Ukraine while they are in the middle of a war with Russia. Men died while Trump was playing games with his politically motivated maneuvering.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-28 08:51 AM | Reply

Trump is wrong - Bolton is not doing this to sell a book. He is doing this because he is a piece of trash Neocon that cannot allow an America First policy. Trump never should have brought this piece of trash into the White House and I said that on the day he took the position.

I love the hard turn you tools have made on foreign policy all because dear leader told you so.

Righties have got to be the most dangerously fickle partisans on the planet.

The Dem fear over that piece of trash Hunter Biden testifying is funny.

LOL it's not fear. It's a rightful expectation that the trial be conducted in good faith, not as a partisan circus.

You keep gobbling up conspiracy theory and innuendo while completely disregarding mountains of real evidence of Trump administration misconduct.

To call you a joke would insult actual jokes.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-28 09:05 AM | Reply

Are Trumptilians actually suggesting their Godking might not always hire the best person for the job?

Their heads are going to be on pikes.

#5 | Posted by anton at 2020-01-28 09:18 AM | Reply

#2 that post absolutely reeked of fear.

#6 | Posted by Sezu at 2020-01-28 09:46 AM | Reply

"Why? How much did Burisma pay her? The Dem fear over that piece of trash Hunter Biden testifying is funny."
But none of that justifies withholding military aid for Ukraine while they are in the middle of a war with Russia. Men died while Trump was playing games with his politically motivated maneuvering.

#3 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2020-01-28 08:51 AM | FLAG:

How many died while Obama sent NOTHING? How much did Obama help Ukraine while Russia invaded Crimea? You didn't give a crap about Ukraine while Obama was in office and all of a sudden you are weeping for their people because military aid was held up for 90 days. What about the 3000 days before that? Please explain.

#7 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-01-28 10:27 AM | Reply

Now matter how many times you scream it, "What about Obama?" still isn't a defense.

The Trump/Barr/Giuliani "Justice" Department is free to investigate and prosecute every living member of the Obama and Clinton families if there is any legal basis for doing so.

Meanwhile, Trump is impeached and facing a trial (or whitewash) in the United States Senate. His former National Security Adviser appears to be prepared to say publicly that Trump is guilty as hell.

It's time to grow up.

#8 | Posted by anton at 2020-01-28 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How many died while Obama sent NOTHING?

OR How many died while some of the Houses Managers, prosecuting the impeachment, voted against $300Million defense aide for Ukraine defense?
clerk.house.gov

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-28 10:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Trump/Barr/Giuliani "Justice" Department is free to investigate and prosecute every living member of the Obama and Clinton families if there is any legal basis for doing so.

It appears its an impeachable offense.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-28 10:50 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

No. But extorting an ally to dig up dirt on a political opponent is impeachable " that is unless you are a monarchist like Alan Dershowitz. In that case, it's fine.

#11 | Posted by anton at 2020-01-28 11:04 AM | Reply

#9 & #10 -- Intentionally obtuse

#12 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-01-28 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It appears its an impeachable offense.

#10 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

I have said freely that I would be HAPPY to have the justice department open an investigation into the Bidens. Or for the Senate to have one of their committees investigate. Yet, neither had happened. Why? If the Bidens did something illegal, why would Republicans be unwilling to investigate and see that justice is served?

The PROBLEM is that Trump did not follow the rules. You know... the rules that ensure constitutional rights are respected (I know... you are a conservative so don't believe in constitutional rights for anyone but other white conservatives). At this point it doesn't even MATTER if Hunter did something illegal. Conservatives have so screwed up any possible legal investigation that REGARDLESS of what Hunter did he would get off on a technicality (that his rights weren't respected, warrants weren't sought, etc) and justice would not be served.

But, that doesn't matter to you. Because you don't care about justice being served. You just care about manufacturing dirt to influence the next election.

#13 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2020-01-28 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now matter how many times you scream it, "What about Obama?" still isn't a defense.
The Trump/Barr/Giuliani "Justice" Department is free to investigate and prosecute every living member of the Obama and Clinton families if there is any legal basis for doing so.
Meanwhile, Trump is impeached and facing a trial (or whitewash) in the United States Senate. His former National Security Adviser appears to be prepared to say publicly that Trump is guilty as hell.
It's time to grow up.

#8 | POSTED BY ANTON AT 2020-01-28 10:40 AM | REPLY

Sure it is. Trump wanted the corruption cleaned up before he gave them 400 million in tax payer money. A part of that corruption was a government who accepted that a major industry was money laundering and commiting fraud. It just so happens that there was and is strong evidence that people in the Obama administration were part of that corruption.

#14 | Posted by fishpaw at 2020-01-28 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How many died while Obama sent NOTHING?"

It remains to be seen who was right. Obama didn't send weapons because he feared, and I agreed with him at the time, that those weapons would be an excuse for Putin to send in much more powerful military forces, now Trump has sent weapons, it remains to be seen what the reaction will be from Putin.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-28 11:28 AM | Reply

#15 | POSTED BY DANNI

A perfectly reasonable explanation, but then you must say Trump didn't hold anything back.

Even if there was a delay, the US got nothing in return. Where is the abuse of power?

To add to #14, the whole point of this "quid pro quo" excuse of impeachment was to ascertain whether Biden&Co had broken the law.

Trump doesn't even need to prove there was fraud or money laundering. Given the little needed to open up an investigation on Carter Page, it seems perfectly reasonable that Trump inquires about Biden's video of him bragging about withholding funds on to remove an investigator, possibly investigating a company his son was an advisor for.

All Trump needs to do is prove it is reasonable to request information, and possibly open an investigation if warranted, not that it needs to be true, as we have seen.

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-28 11:42 AM | Reply

" If the Bidens did something illegal, why would Republicans be unwilling to investigate and see that justice is served?"

Because that kind of stuff is bipartisan.

#17 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-01-28 11:51 AM | Reply

Sure it is. Trump wanted the corruption cleaned up before he gave them 400 million in tax payer money. A part of that corruption was a government who accepted that a major industry was money laundering and commiting fraud. It just so happens that there was and is strong evidence that people in the Obama administration were part of that corruption.

#14 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2020-01-28 11:24 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

"You can't impeach me for my wrongdoing because my predecessor did bad stuff" is not a defense.

Also, why didn't Trump clean up the corruption at Trump University or the Trump Foundation before looking in Ukraine?

#18 | Posted by anton at 2020-01-28 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here was the key takeaway in the linked piece for me:

So Bolton's account, if corroborated

The NYT got its information secondhand and Bolton and his publishers are adamant it wasn't from them.

Given how many so-called "bombshells" over the past 3 years that ended up being either a mere firecracker or an outright falsehood, I'm simply not going to put too much into this until I am given more than hearsay.

Throw in the timing of this leak and how it was reported and, it looks sketchy. It may end up proving to be accurate and if that ends up being the case, fine.

I have a serious question for you folks: Think about how many times a bombshell was reported by the media and your reaction each and every time and how much confirmation bias played a role with your reaction(s) - Given how many times that has happened in the Trump era, do you all think that maybe, just maybe, this Bolton thing should be taken with a big grain of salt?

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:20 PM | Reply

Sure it is. Trump wanted the corruption cleaned up before he gave them 400 million in tax payer money.

#14 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Is that why he's continued to push for the investigations and anti-corruption actions?

STFU ------.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-28 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

LOL it's hilarious that you guys trot this line out every time there's a leak or anonymously sourced story.

And far more often than not you disappear and say nothing after it's corroborated.

Notice they didn't deny the info, Jeff? They just said they didn't leak it.

Now put the Trump Water down and go think about what you've done.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-28 12:27 PM | Reply

Trump wanted the corruption cleaned up before he gave them 400 million in tax payer money.

#14 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Trump wanted what he said he wanted, dirt to hurt Biden.

I need to get something straight: Do you only hear the things Trump says that makes him look good, or deliberately ignore the things that make him look bad?

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-28 12:33 PM | Reply

Trump had multiple opportunities to withhold aide from Ukraine before July 25th phone call, most notably in 2018. Why did he wait so long if he was so concerned? Trump allowed this perception of corruption and personal political benefit to be established by taking on this anti-Ukraine Corruption crusade right in the middle of campaign season and right around the time Biden took the lead in the polls all the while knowing he ignored the supposed Ukrainian corruption for a significant amount of time while POTUS.

This is emblematic of either Trump's corruption or ineptitude. Even the latter is a context that necessitates impeachment, IMO. The former should be obvious, even if you subscribe to the tripe that "nothing really happened."

#23 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-28 12:34 PM | Reply

"It just so happens that there was and is strong evidence that people in the Obama administration were part of that corruption."

Then post a link supporting that claim or else we'll mostly consider it your typical lying crap.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-28 12:43 PM | Reply

"Trump didn't want an investigation into Biden. He wanted a political show."

"Ambassador Gordon Sondland's Wednesday House testimony was full of revelations. One of them is that President Donald Trump never seemed to ask Ukraine for an actual investigation of Vice President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.

All he wanted, according to Sondland, was a public announcement of an investigation. He wanted a show."

www.vox.com

#25 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-28 12:46 PM | Reply

Notice they didn't deny the info, Jeff?

Notice they didn't affirm the info, JPW? That reasoning works both ways.

think about what you've done.

#21 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2020-01-28 12:27 PM

This is what I'm doing (posted on another thread):

I'm going to point out that at this moment we don't know if this is what Bolton is actually alleging. This is all hearsay and it's of course dutifully reported by the NYT. NYT doesn't name its sources, which is almost always the case these days and Bolton and his publisher are adamant they are not the source of this leak, so this is secondhand information. Also, given the amazing timing of the leak it's possible that the leaker is distorting Bolton in order to grind a political axe. I hate to be such a wet blanket over such a good anti-Trump conspiracy theory - I'm just trying to lower expectations for you folks in case this ends up being just the next in a series of anti-Trump bombshells that ended up being duds. It may well be accurate and if so, fine. I'm not investing myself in this though until I see it from the horse's mouth.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-01-28 12:33 PM


And also this in response to Moder8:

What I'm saying is you are getting your hopes up on hearsay. Given the sheer volume of so-called bombshells that ended up being duds, you really should be somewhat skeptical given this is all secondhand information and the DOJ is adamant that during conversations with Bolton he never expressed the concerns that NYT's unnamed source is claiming. Could the DOJ be lying? Of course.

My motivation? Lowering you folks' expectations. I've seen countless ----------- over bombshell after bombshell that ended up being duds. How many times does that have to happen to you folks before you begin to temper your expectations due to not wanting to get burned, again?

You are a classic case in point and a member of my target audience on this, Moder8. You have emotionally invested yourself in this story and are lashing out at me for simply pointing out that pattern of these bombshells-turned-duds coupled with the fact that all we have at this point on this story is hearsay.

As a defense attorney when your client says the accuser's brother told me x, which is exculpatory, do you call the accuser's sister in to testify instead of his brother?

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-01-28 12:46 PM


#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:55 PM | Reply

And far more often than not you disappear and say nothing after it's corroborated.

And far more often that not you disappear and say nothing after it's proven to be a dud.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:56 PM | Reply

Notice they didn't affirm the info, JPW? That reasoning works both ways.

LOL you're desperate.

And far more often that not you disappear and say nothing after it's proven to be a dud.

#27 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Especially so if you're resorting to goaturd word games.

The right has so much egg on it's face it's only natural we on the left throw some veggies at you to make you an omelet.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-28 12:58 PM | Reply

"Sure it is. Trump wanted the corruption cleaned up before he gave them 400 million in tax payer money."

- Fishpaw

You're now expecting everyone to believe Trump was standing on moral high ground? After running a $25 million dollar scam with a fake university and stealing from childhood cancer charity?

No thank you, I'm sticking with his proven record.

#29 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-01-28 01:25 PM | Reply

LOL you're desperate.

Not at all. Bolton has every reason to be coy about this NYT piece - it builds intrigue for his book and likely generates more sales. This is all the more reason I don't think he's behind the leak to the NYT. At the end of the day, I don't think he actually wants to testify in front of the Senate even though he said he'd be willing to. And that's because why would he want something so juicy to be publicly known prior to the official release of his book?

Especially so if you're resorting to goaturd word games.

The right has so much egg on it's face it's only natural we on the left throw some veggies at you to make you an omelet.

#28 | POSTED BY JPW

How many times did we hear, "The walls are closing in...Bombshell...etc." only to have those breathless reports turn out to be duds, and in some cases outright falsehoods? I've lost count. Just on Russia-collusion alone those examples are numerous.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 06:35 PM | Reply

You're now expecting everyone to believe Trump was standing on moral high ground? After running a $25 million dollar scam with a fake university and stealing from childhood cancer charity?

No thank you, I'm sticking with his proven record.

#29 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

It's hypocritical as hell for Trump, given the examples you cited, but he might have a genuine concern at rooting out corruption that isn't tied to him or his team.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 06:37 PM | Reply

A teapot might be in orbit around Pluto.
Or it might not.

Both are like, equally valid opinions, in the mind of a Deplorable.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 06:42 PM | Reply

"(Trump) might have a genuine concern at rooting out corruption that isn't tied to him or his team."

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Ahhhhahahahahahahah! Heeeeeeheeeeeeehe----

Oh, wait? You're SERIOUS?!? You're f^^king SERIOUS?!?!?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-28 06:46 PM | Reply

OJ might have a genuine concern at finding the real killers.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 06:48 PM | Reply

Oh, wait? You're SERIOUS?!? You're f^^king SERIOUS?!?!?

#33 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Sure I'm serious. If rooting out corruption outside of his team benefits him personally or his team in the aggregate, why wouldn't he have an interest in rooting it out?

I'm not suggesting he would do so out of benevolence or some kind of moral standard.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 06:50 PM | Reply

Besides being laughably...laughable, it defies all logic: why didn't Trump withhold aid in 2017 or 2018 if "corruption" was an issue? And why did Trump release the aid in 2019 with no promise of corruption being addressed??? And why did multiple people (Mulvaney, Sondland under oath) admit there was a QPQ? And why did Trump only want an "announcement" of an investigation, instead of an actual investigation?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-28 06:50 PM | Reply

"Sure I'm serious. If rooting out corruption outside of his team benefits him personally or his team in the aggregate, why wouldn't he have an interest in rooting it out?"

^
There's no way you're serious.
But if there is: Imagine playing this stupid game, and thinking you're being politically savvy.
Congratulations, you built that!

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 06:52 PM | Reply

"If rooting out corruption outside of his team benefits him personally"

His own HSA advisor told him on multiple occasions it was bunk; just purposeful Russian disinformation. Knowing that, Trump CHOSE to continue the ruse.

"Sure I'm serious."

No you're not. NO ONE is that dumb.

"why wouldn't he have an interest in rooting it out?"

Well, knowing there wasn't anything to root out, he's do it for personal political gain, while withholding Congressionally-approved aid...which is a pretty clear High Crime & Misdemeanor. And since the GAO (iirc) recently claimed withholding aid broke the law, executive privilege won't apply.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-28 06:55 PM | Reply

Danforth and Snoofy,

If rooting out corruption outside of his team, personally benefits Trump, he'll have an interesting in doing it. He won't be doing it because it's the right thing to do, he'll be doing it because it benefits him. I don't know how this take is even controversial.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 06:57 PM | Reply

"I don't know how this take is even controversial."

It's not controversial.
It's abysmally stupid.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 06:58 PM | Reply

I am speaking in a general sense, not a specific sense.

Hypothetical - If Trump learned that one of his political or personal opponents had a genuinely corrupt arrangement either in the present or past do you believe he'd have no interest in rooting that out?

Note: I'm not talking about Burisma, I'm talking in general terms. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 06:59 PM | Reply

"If rooting out corruption outside of his team, personally benefits Trump, he'll have an interesting in doing it."

^
It's an abuse of power, not to mention a likely violation of the Emoluments Clause, for the President to undertake actions for his personal benefit.
You lose by winning this argument.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 07:01 PM | Reply

"I am speaking in a general sense, not a specific sense."

I am speaking in a specific sense:
Shut up.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 07:01 PM | Reply

#41 Jeff

If Trump was that concerned with corruption amongst the Biden's, he didn't need any help from a foreign country flushing it out.

#44 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-01-28 07:09 PM | Reply

It's an abuse of power, not to mention a likely violation of the Emoluments Clause, for the President to undertake actions for his personal benefit.
You lose by winning this argument.

#42 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

This is why I ignore so many of your posts. All you are doing is playing word games to try and win the discussion, instead of just engaging in back and forth.

I did however give #43 a FF because that was a good response.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 07:10 PM | Reply

If Trump was that concerned with corruption amongst the Biden's, he didn't need any help from a foreign country flushing it out.

#44 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

I know. In a general sense, with Trump he's capable doing the right thing, but it's typically for the wrong reasons. Does that make sense?

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 07:12 PM | Reply

Snoofys the masterdebater

#47 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-01-28 07:13 PM | Reply

I know. In a general sense, with Trump he's capable doing the right thing, but it's typically for the wrong reasons. Does that make sense?

#46 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-01-28 07:12 PM | FLAG:

At this point to me, he's surpassed the average slimy politician.

#48 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2020-01-28 07:19 PM | Reply

"This is why I ignore so many of your posts. All you are doing is playing word games to try and win the discussion, instead of just engaging in back and forth."

I absolutely understand your back-and-forth.
That's why I can tell you how wrong it is.

Your argument is, with respect to Trump's actions, "there may be a teapot in orbit around Pluto, or there may not. Without knowing that, we can't judge Trump for what he did."

You're basically saying only The Shadow can judge Trump, for only The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of men. JeffJ, having no way of knowing, will give Trump the benefit of the doubt.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 07:24 PM | Reply

"This is why Everyone should ignore all of your posts."

FT

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-28 07:25 PM | Reply

"In a general sense"

This isn't about generalities.
It's about withholding aid from Ukraine for Trump's personal gain.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 07:25 PM | Reply

JeffJ's argument is that if Trump withheld aid for reasons that benefit Trump, then it's okay. for example, if stopping corruption by withholding aid to Ukraine helps trump, then it's okay for Trump to withhold.

That's the specific argument you're making, JeffJ.
Why don't you go ahead and pretend I made it, maybe that was you can see how stillborn it is.

To put it really, really simple:
There isn't a right reason that makes doing the illegal thing okay.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 07:30 PM | Reply

At this point to me, he's surpassed the average slimy politician.

#48 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

That's fair - I don't disagree with that.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 07:37 PM | Reply

"Hypothetical - If Trump learned that one of his political or personal opponents had a genuinely corrupt arrangement either in the present or past do you believe he'd have no interest in rooting that out?"

^
I notice the legality of the President "rooting that out" for personal gain is wholly absent from your hypothetical.
That's what makes it such a bad hack job.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 07:43 PM | Reply

"Especially so if you're resorting to goaturd word games.

#28 | POSTED BY JPW "

Weird how the only people whose head I live in are those who claim they have me plonked.

#55 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-29 01:23 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort