Bolton:Trump ok'd China's camps, didn't know UK had nukes, thought Finland was Russia

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2020, 10:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I don't feel like giving credit to Trump for hiring Bolton straight out of FOX only to realize after quite some time that this guy is a relentless war hawk.

He could have asked me, I could have told him right away.

Btw. if Bolton muses about things that were spoken in confidence, I do have a problem with it. I take it that indeed happened (I don't really intend to delve into the book myself), which does not surprise me. As I said, despicable walrus, stupid book.

I don't give him credit for the hire; never was a fan. I just didn't see folks in this thread taking issue with Bolton's comments. Seemed they were applauding them

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 10:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I don't feel like giving credit to Trump for hiring Bolton straight out of FOX only to realize after quite some time that this guy is a relentless war hawk.

He could have asked me, I could have told him right away.

Btw. if Bolton muses about things that were spoken in confidence, I do have a problem with it. I take it that indeed happened (I don't really intend to delve into the book myself), which does not surprise me. As I said, despicable walrus, stupid book.

Don't you think he hired Bolton BECAUSE he was a warhawk? 

Why do you supposed he liked Mattis' nickname "Mad Dog"?

[hollodero]

(06-18-2020, 11:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't give him credit for the hire; never was a fan. I just didn't see folks in this thread taking issue with Bolton's comments. Seemed they were applauding them

Seemed you wanted people to give him credit for firing him though.

(06-18-2020, 11:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Don't you think he hired Bolton BECAUSE he was a warhawk? 

I think he hired him because he saw him on FOX and he probably said something nice about him or something nasty about Democrats. I honestly believe there was not much else behind it. Maybe some GOP figures promoted him.
Trump did not go to war, so what use did he have for a war hawk. Trump seemed surprised to figure that out and by all appearances, he might not even have figured out Bolton's role in earlier administrations.

(06-18-2020, 11:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Why do you supposed he liked Mattis' nickname "Mad Dog"?

I don't know.

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2020, 11:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: Seemed you wanted people to give him credit for firing him though.

It shouldn't seem like it; I did. He made a mistake and looked to rectify it. You don't think that deserves credit? 

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In this matter: Yes. I Simply asked a question and then replied to the answer of "but Trump". 

Now as to my question: Does you have a problem with a former NSA making public things he and a sitting POTUS discussed in confidence? 

Let's read the book first and see what Bolton says Trump said.

If Trump abused his power, in part by disarming mechanisms of accountability, then no, I don't have a problem with a former NSA explaining how that occurred. Especially if that is the only way the public can learn of the abuse.

If Trump was committing high crimes, then "in confidence" is no defense. Nor is blaming the messenger.

Do you have a problem with elected officials' abuse of power or not?

If you DO have a problem with it, is it your position that the abuse should be addressed in public or behind closed doors? What sort of accountability can be secret? None. If you think it should be addressed in public, then stop the endless deflection of public accountability for Trump.

If you DO NOT have a problem with presidential abuse of power, then you are not really in favor of liberal democracy. King's and dictators make the state's business their private business. No concern of the public. The messenger is the criminal.  Our system was designed to make governing transparent, so Presidents cannot convert state business to private. 

You must finally choose which form of government you support.

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2020, 11:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's read the book first and see what Bolton says Trump said.

If Trump abused his power, in part by disarming mechanisms of accountability, then no, I don't have a problem with a former NSA explaining how that occurred. Especially if that is the only way the public can learn of the abuse.

If Trump was committing high crimes, then "in confidence" is no defense. Nor is blaming the messenger.

Do you have a problem with elected officials' abuse of power or not?

If you DO have a problem with it, is it your position that the abuse should be addressed in public or behind closed doors? What sort of accountability can be secret? None. If you think it should be addressed in public, then stop the endless deflection of public accountability for Trump.

If you DO NOT have a problem with presidential abuse of power, then you are not really in favor of liberal democracy. King's and dictators make the state's business their private business. No concern of the public. The messenger is the criminal.  Our system was designed to make governing transparent, so Presidents cannot convert state business to private. 

You must finally choose which form of government you support.

Of course you'd have a point if Bolton's desire was to testify before congress instead of trying to turn a profit. And yes; I'd still have a problem with a former NSA making public things that were "discussed" in confidence.  

I'll take your long-winded answer as "no" you don't have a problem with it. 

"Reading the book" has not stopped folks in here from applauding the comments so far, but when I suggest it should not be applauded it's met with "let's read the book".

You must finally choose if your desire is to make POTUS look bad or support our democracy. 

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 11:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think he hired him because he saw him on FOX and he probably said something nice about him or something nasty about Democrats. I honestly believe there was not much else behind it. Maybe some GOP figures promoted him.
Trump did not go to war, so what use did he have for a war hawk. Trump seemed surprised to figure that out and by all appearances, he might not even have figured out Bolton's role in earlier administrations.

I don't know.

Trump saw a lot of people on Fox news. He was warned away from Bolton early on, possibly from his generals. 

What would a "promotion" of Bolton look like that did not include his trademark hard line on Iran, his condemnation of the Iran Deal, support for the Iraq War, etc.

The bolded doesn't really make sense. You have granted the difference between war and no war was a coin flip. Trump pushed us to the brink with Iran twice. He used Cruise missiles on Syria twice, vowed to destroy ISIS by bombing and finished the job Obama started. He bragged of dropping a MOAB in A-stan and promised more. Bolton says Trump thought invading Venezuela would be cool, but was dissuaded by Putin, who, with a firm grasp of Trump's psychological profile, likened Maduro's political opponent to Hillary Clinton. I'd like to see how far that can be substantiated.

Trump is pretty clearly an authoritarian personality and admires the same in those he does not immediately work with--Putin, Erdogan, Xi and Duterte from a distance. Also Mattis, Kelly and Bolton--from a distance.  Authoritarians do not work well together.

In short, I am not ready to attribute some pacifist instinct to Trump which has forced him to pull back from wars at the last minute. Concern for re-election appears to be the only recurring obstacle.

[Dill]

(06-18-2020, 11:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you'd have a point if Bolton's desire was to testify before congress instead of trying to turn a profit. And yes; I'd still have a problem with a former NSA making public things that were "discussed" in confidence.  

I'll take your long-winded answer as "no" you don't have a problem with it. 

"Reading the book" has not stopped folks in here from applauding the comments so far, but when I suggest it should not be applauded it's met with "let's read the book".

You must finally choose if your desire is to make POTUS look bad or support our democracy. 

No one thinks an advisor or other public official should make confidential negotiations public--unless they violated law or public trust. We "read the book" to find that out. If Trump does the things Bolton says he does, then Bolton's motivation is immaterial.

You avoid the question of legality by referring to overly general "things discussed in confidence," as if legal and illegal are equally protected in the case of a Republican president, as they would be in the case of a king or dictator, whose advisors pledge personal loyalty HIM, not some constitution and the people it represents.

Reread what I said in that "long-winded answer" about blaming the messenger. "Making POTUS look bad" in this case, as in myriad others, turns out to be just reporting what he actually says and does. 

And that is what you don't "applaud." Transparency. 

The final choice you pose implies its absence supports democracy--in the case of president who fires IG's and whistleblowers--while its presence does not; it rather "makes POTUS look bad."

[hollodero]

(06-18-2020, 11:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It shouldn't seem like it; I did. He made a mistake and looked to rectify it. You don't think that deserves credit? 

This is a hard no for me. First because the pattern simply repeated itself too often - and second, this is a bit cheap to collect credit. If I'm the Bengals GM and insist on hiring Gabbert as QB just to release him after two dreadful seasons or so, I guess only a handful would then sing my praises for my rectifying. I guess most would still call me an idiot for making this decision in the first place. And rightfully so.

[hollodero]

(06-18-2020, 11:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump saw a lot of people on Fox news. He was warned away from Bolton early on, possibly from his generals. 

He knows more then them though.

And I might be wrong, but I guess none of your reasoning played much part in Trump's decision for Bolton. If I'd do a youtube search, I might find ten clips of Bolton that possibly wagered more into it than any consideration about policy.

(06-18-2020, 11:42 PM)Dill Wrote: In short, I am not ready to attribute some pacifist instinct to Trump which has forced him to pull back from wars at the last minute. Concern for re-election appears to be the only recurring obstacle.

That might very well be true. Wars are unpopular. And this is the area he has some expertise in.
I mean, I don't want to give him a ton of credit for being some kind of "peace president". But if he avoids war just because of his reelection chances, I still take it.

[Dill]

(06-19-2020, 01:10 AM)hollodero Wrote: And I might be wrong, but I guess none of your reasoning played much part in Trump's decision for Bolton. If I'd do a youtube search, I might find ten clips of Bolton that possibly wagered more into it than any consideration about policy.

 I said Trump admires authoritarian personalities, and Bolton is one. At the basic level Trump does consider policy, if it's about "standing up" to NK and Iran and the like (but not Russia). If he saw a youtube clip of Bolton advocating a first strike on NK, and chose him as NSA, that would not be the choice of a president worried about starting wars.

Where you might see "policy" on your 10 Youtube clips, Trump would see primarily see attitude and style. And that is what he was choosing. Outside of the Iran Deal, Trump could probably not list the policy differences between McMaster and Bolton, but he could say that Bolton "sounded more" like the guy he wanted.  (This clip conveys a sense of Trump's criteria--his premature announcement of "mad dog" Mattis for DefSec, who was supposedly "most like Patton" of all the generals.) https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article118468543.html

But Trump didn't just see and hear about Bolton from secondary sources.

Remember he interviewed Bolton in 2017 but didn't like his mustache. According to the NYT, thereafter Bolton met "regularly" with Trump while McMaster was still NSA.  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/hr-mcmaster-trump-bolton.html

When the friction with McMaster (who didn't want to rip up the Iran deal) become to much, Trump went to the guy he had already been talking with, despite his mustache--the guy who had an idea about how to win a war with Iran, without using ground forces.

So a gentle disagreement with you--there was more behind the choice of Bolton than an occasional glimpse on Fox and a recommendation from Hannity. Bolton is not someone one chooses because one wants to stay out of wars.  And I think Bolton was restraining Trump more than vice versa--especially Trump's impulses to violate law and protocol--and so he had to, as Bfine puts it, "rectify" his mistake by "firing" Bolton when he quit, to look for someone who would play ball, legal or not. 

[samhain]

(06-19-2020, 12:04 AM)Dill Wrote: No one thinks an advisor or other public official should make confidential negotiations public--unless they violated law or public trust. We "read the book" to find that out. If Trump does the things Bolton says he does, then Bolton's motivation is immaterial.

You avoid the question of legality by referring to overly general "things discussed in confidence," as if legal and illegal are equally protected in the case of a Republican president, as they would be in the case of a king or dictator, whose advisors pledge personal loyalty HIM, not some constitution and the people it represents.

Reread what I said in that "long-winded answer" about blaming the messenger. "Making POTUS look bad" in this case, as in myriad others, turns out to be just reporting what he actually says and does. 

And that is what you don't "applaud." Transparency. 

The final choice you pose implies its absence supports democracy--in the case of president who fires IG's and whistleblowers--while its presence does not; it rather "makes POTUS look bad."

I don't seem to recall the right having many misgivings about embracing Dick Morris when he turned on Bill Clinton.  He was one of Bill's closest advisors for a significant part of his political life then did all he could to crap on Bill and His down the road.

[GMDino]

I didn't like Bolton.  I don't like Bolton.  Both because of his political views on a variety of subjects.

I didn't and don't know what he is like as a person.

He's not a Gingrich that left one dying wife for a younger model.

He's not a Trump...that's all you have to say.


That doesn't mean Bolton is or isn't telling the truth...it means he's given me no reason to believe he is lying.

Put through the prism of Trump:  If Trump says someone else is lying and he is telling the truth you can 100% guarantee that the opposite is true.

[GMDino]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walter-shaub-ivanka-trump_n_5eeaceddc5b67b92ff2d260c

Quote:Ivanka Trump Emails Resurface In Wake Of Bolton Book
Messages obtained by American Oversight get new attention after being highlighted on social media by former White House ethics chief Walter Shaub.




Ivanka Trump, President Donald Trump’s daughter and adviser, was conducting government business from a private email account before she was employed by the government, according to records getting new attention this week. 

Walter Shaub, former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, highlighted two messages uncovered by the nonpartisan watchdog group American Oversight. He served in the ethics office for six months under then-President Barack Obama and resigned six months into the Trump presidency. 


One of the messages Shaub shared on Twitter appeared to show Ivanka Trump conducting business with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos almost a month before she had an official role:

Quote:
[/url]Walter Shaub

@waltshaub

Well now, this is disturbing. Ivanka Trump didn't become a government employee until March 29, 2017. This email is dated four weeks earlier than that. Why is she appearing to conduct government business in this email she sent while still a private citizen? https://twitter.com/weareoversight/status/1273379400101363713 …


American Oversight

@weareoversight
Replying to @weareoversight
Our investigation had already uncovered several emails sent between Ivanka and top cabinet officials, including this one to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. https://www.americanoversight.org/ivanka-emails 




8,325
7:24 PM - Jun 17, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

5,611 people are talking about this





Another, which was from several days earlier, referred to a government official as her “chief of staff.”

Quote:
Walter Shaub

@waltshaub



Replying to @waltshaub

This one @weareoversight uncovered is even MORE disturbing. A MONTH before Ivanka Trump became a government official, she refers to a WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL as her own "chief of staff." Wow! This is really crazy stuff. Good work, @weareoversight! https://documentcloud.org/documents/4059944-SBA-Correspondence-with-Ivanka-Trump.html#document/p3/a377544 …



3,633
7:32 PM - Jun 17, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,190 people are talking about this

[url=https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1273398174183493635]




The organization uncovered the messages in 2017 via a Freedom of Information Act request. But they’re receiving new attention in the wake of allegations in former national security advisor John Bolton’s upcoming book, which claims the president defended Saudi Arabia after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to distract from the news that Ivanka Trump had been conducting government business via private email. 

That behavior was something the president railed against during the 2016 presidential campaign when the issue was Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The mere mention of the emails routinely led to “lock her up” chants at his rallies.


The president’s daughter has been at the center of multiple ethics controversies during the Trump administration. In addition to her use of private email, she was awarded at least 18 trademarks by China at a time when the administration was attempting to negotiate trade with the country. 
 
UPDATE: The headline for this article has been updated to align more closely with the article in attributing the revelation of the emails to American Oversight, not Walter Shaub.

[GMDino]

(06-18-2020, 11:29 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: For people who pay attention to Trump, this is just another "Yea, that makes sense. He's a dumbass." moment.

For people who support Trump, this is just another "Slanderous attempt to take down our president by a lover scorned! Fake news!" moment.

That's American politics today :).

Trump supporters can't be swayed at all.  It doesn't matter who says it what is said or how much proof...they just close their eyes and ears and shake their heads "no".

Really sad.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2020, 11:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well hindsight is 20/20, but yeah. seems like a bad hire. 

Trump? Or Bolton?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2020, 09:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one here has a problem with a former National SECURITY Advisor trying to turn a profit by telling things that he and a sitting President "talked" about?

What did Bolton reveal?

[GMDino]

(06-19-2020, 11:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What did Bolton reveal?

All "lies" according to Trump.  Never happened.  So nothing revealed at all.  Right?

[*Nately120*]

(06-19-2020, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Trump supporters can't be swayed at all.  It doesn't matter who says it what is said or how much proof...they just close their eyes and ears and shake their heads "no".

Really sad.

They're all in by this point.  It's like selling your house to fulfill the 19th unforseen expense that Nigerian Prince needs to release your 100 million dollar inheritance to you.  You wouldn't have agreed to this on day 1, but you're in too deep now to call it quits.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-19-2020, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: All "lies" according to Trump.  Never happened.  So nothing revealed at all.  Right?

Never happened never happened? Or never happened like Trump never paid off Stormy Daniels never happened? Or never happened like Trump never knew his lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels never happened? Or never happened like Trump did in fact pay off Stormy Daniels as was correctly reported the entire time, but only to spare Melania’s feelings because Trump is a sensitive, caring husband who places his wife’s well being above his own political ambitions never happened?

I haven’t read the book so I was wondering what bfine read in the book that has him not defending defending Trump again.