(06-19-2020, 06:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: According to republican senators, you can not.
I think you absolutely should be able to though, and so I have to agree with Bels, this information had to go to Congress during the impeachment process. Even if the end result would just have been additional shame to the acquitting GOP senators.
But if he had taken the info to Congress the voters would have been informed as well.
Of course it should have gone to congress; hell, I even think he was invited. Pretty sure I've said that a time or 2.
(06-19-2020, 07:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it should have gone to congress; hell, I even think he was invited. Pretty sure I've said that a time or 2.
? Yeah I was not disagreeing with you. At all. Just answering a question of yours.
(06-19-2020, 05:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Man, this thread has been on overdrive since this post. I, personally, have a problem with anyone writing a book like this. Doesn't matter the administration, doesn't matter whether it's good or bad for the administration. Maybe it's the bureaucrat in me, but there are things that are just kept in-house and that when shared often don't contain the context necessary for someone not involved in it to understand. This isn't even getting into the potential security concerns. If someone has information about an administration like what is supposedly in Bolton's book, Congress is their place to take it. Maybe an IG if there is one they fall under the purview of.
I think things are important for the public to know because we are a democratic society and an informed populous is a requirement of such. However, there is a process in place for it and the continual skirting of that process in favor of self-promotion is also a degrading factor of our democracy. The issue at hand, though, is that I see our system as broken and dysfunctional. I think we have decades of shameless self-promotion that can be held as partly to blame for this, as well.
Everyone agrees there are things that should be kept in house. But this is also a democracy, a kind of government which requires transparency. One role of journalism and public discussion is to "flesh out" the context of reports of WH inner workings, if that is lacking.
Trump, with his party's fearful blessing, has broken the "process in place," hasn't he? What happens to whistleblowers and IGs now who go by the book? Take their revelations to Congress? Protecting the Trump WH's penchant for secrecy is not in the public interest, when it is so frequently and so blatantly used to abuse power.
"Self-promotion" has not broken that process, but disrespect for democracy. McConnell and Barr. Gingrich before them. And the millions of voters who approve.
We have so many "unprecedented" responses to Trump's administration because it has sought so aggressively to neuter accountability, and to use the people's money and institutions for private purposes. Two of the most recent examples:
This month, President Donald Trump successfully coerced Senate Republicans to ram through the stalled nomination of conservative filmmaker Michael Pack to run the United States Agency for Global Media, which oversees a handful of federally funded but editorially independent media organizations, like Voice of America. Pack, an ally of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, was selected by Trump in hopes of steering favorable coverage from the group of outlets, which, put together, amount to one of the largest media networks in the world.
So it DOES matter the administration, whether it is good or bad, or more importantly, whether it is using the protection of high office to abuse power.
(06-19-2020, 05:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, there might or might not be a bigger point I would be able to agree on. I don't think Bolton's book did much to shed light on this though. There was already enough light shed on this. No, your president has no basic knowledge of global or any affairs besides his own, and we were both aware of that before Bolton spoke up.
And those who weren't or chose to ignore it or paint it as CNN lies, well, they won't be persuaded now. I don't think there is any greater good involved that superseeds the evil you mentioned. Bolton's book (can I call him a despicable walrus one last time?) changes nothing in that regard and I consider that statement to be a fairly obvious one.
Have you read Bolton's book yet?
The value of the book is not in telling us Trump is "a moron, which we already know," as if we didn't know.
The value is in part in revealing the logic of how the national security apparatus did or did not work under Bolton's tenure. The specifics of his account might help us understand some problems coming down the pike. They might galvanize Congress to prevent them, as they did prevent his rolling back of Russia sanctions.
Other value is in moving more independents and conservatives to action who didn't realize how bad it was, and will continue to be, not in convincing the immovable Trump supporter. You dismiss polls showing Biden's lead because Trump's support hoovers at 40%. The point is we don't want Biden's polls hovering at 40%.
Finally, regarding the evil I mentioned, I am truly puzzled you don't see any "greater good" here. If I understand you, you are saying that Trump's use of confidentiality to undo democracy and accountability troubles you less than setting some kiss-and-tell precedent which has already been set, and not really the point of Bolton's book.
(06-19-2020, 07:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Trump has singlehandedly rendered the IG oversight process completely useless.
Eh, not entirely. He has done his best to damage it, I will agree. But the IG process is still in place and there are still policies that require IG reporting to Congress.
I am with Breech on this one.
I don't know at all that the IG process is "still in place" in any effective form.
If there are policies that still require IG reporting, it looks like Trump will/can break them if and as such reporting becomes a threat.
Now every IG and whistleblower has to understand that protections are no longer in place.
Every decision to blow a whistle or turn in an accurate accounting has been turned into a decision as to whether one wants to keep one's job or not. And even for those courageous enough to take that risk, they must factor in that risking one's job is likely to amount to nothing.
That is enough to paralyze the process while leaving it "in place," so we hear even less about what Trump does "in confidence" as his freedom from transparency and accountability increases.
And that's why we need to read Bolton's book before deciding executive confidentiality is the real stake here.
(06-19-2020, 06:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know if any of the info in Bolton's book had anything to do with the grounds for impeachment. Congress can't do anything with a report that the president is stupid.
Bolton supposedly says that Trump definitively said that he did not want at dime to go to Ukraine until they got him dirt on Hillary and Biden. NOT on corruption in general--just those two. And not even real dirt, just an announcement that could be used.
I.e., Congressional aid given in the US national interest to an ally desperately defending its territory would be held up indefinitely in hopes of crafting Trump's campaign narrative.
People may claim "we already knew this," but Bolton's version cancels objections that previous testimony was hearsay or third hand.
(06-20-2020, 03:50 AM)Dill Wrote: Have you read Bolton's book yet?
No, and I won't. There are limits.
(06-20-2020, 03:50 AM)Dill Wrote: The value of the book is not in telling us Trump is "a moron, which we already know," as if we didn't know.
You do realize I addressed that point because fred said the voter needs to be informed about just that.
(06-20-2020, 03:50 AM)Dill Wrote: Other value is in moving more independents and conservatives to action who didn't realize how bad it was, and will continue to be, not in convincing the immovable Trump supporter. You dismiss polls showing Biden's lead because Trump's support hoovers at 40%. The point is we don't want Biden's polls hovering at 40%.
I'm not sure the picture's that different as it was with Hillary at this point. Many others obviously are. So, OK.
(06-20-2020, 03:50 AM)Dill Wrote: Finally, regarding the evil I mentioned, I am truly puzzled you don't see any "greater good" here. If I understand you, you are saying that Trump's use of confidentiality to undo democracy and accountability troubles you less than setting some kiss-and-tell precedent which has already been set, and not really the point of Bolton's book.
I said nothing of that kind. What I will say is that Trump not knowing if Finland is part of Russia or things like those - that, let's be honest, are not really a matter of undoing democracy, just of stupidity - does serve no such purpose. I certainly am for keeping such things confidential.
Was there something so urgently important to share (a year later...) in one of those conversations that it superseeds the really quite sensible norm of keeping confidential conversations confidential? The Finland thing imho does not qualify. If there is something more substantial though, I might reconsider my stance on the confidentiality thing. You read this thing, you can tell me.
--- Chances are though that I keep my stance that if there is such an incident and Bolton were so honestly concerned about it, the time to tell was exactly when Congress asked him to appear in front of them. I will not exonerate Bolton on that one.
(06-20-2020, 06:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: I said nothing of that kind. What I will say is that Trump not knowing if Finland is part of Russia or things like those - that, let's be honest, are not really a matter of undoing democracy, just of stupidity - does serve no such purpose. I certainly am for keeping such things confidential.
Was there something so urgently important to share (a year later...) in one of those conversations that it superseeds the really quite sensible norm of keeping confidential conversations confidential? The Finland thing imho does not qualify. If there is something more substantial though, I might reconsider my stance on the confidentiality thing. You read this thing, you can tell me.
--- Chances are though that I keep my stance that if there is such an incident and Bolton were so honestly concerned about it, the time to tell was exactly when Congress asked him to appear in front of them. I will not exonerate Bolton on that one.
Not about "exonerating" Bolton.
It is partly about whether Trump actually said that Congressional aid does not go forward until an embattled ally makes an announcement implying Biden corruption. And it's partly about Trump's fitness to make geopolitical decisions. "Just stupidity" in the most powerful person on earth can certainly be a matter of undoing democracy--abroad as well as at home. One thing when a fan doesn't know that the LA Rams are not in the AFCN, quite another if a coach or GM doesn't.
If Bolton didn't testify at the right time, that is also part of the problem, as I intimated in an earlier post. He and many others will not help the country if it means cooperating directly with Dems. But Trump is still by far the bigger part of the problem.
Its like you and I are in the galley of a ship crossing the Atlantic at night in mid winter, and the navigator comes to us, angry because the captain has just dismissed him, and says that if we buy him a beer he'll provide evidence validating the rumor that every night the captain turns off the sonar which protects us against icebergs because he doesn't like all that pinging noise, and sundry other unsafe navigating decisions. Would you want to hear that guy out, inform the rest of the crew? Or would you refuse to buy the beer because he was betraying the bridge confidentiality, for his own profit no less, and because he should have gone through "proper channels" and/or told us all that before he was dismissed? Even though we are still months from making port?
Right now our ship of state is captained by someone who can't read maps and thinks warnings about icebergs come from disgruntled crew to make him look bad. Some crew (now fired) have complained to the corporation which owns the ship, but half the board of directors (those who installed the captain) say he is doing just fine and overide the other half, whom they accuse of just hating him.
(06-18-2020, 01:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, you beat me to this.
Bolton also alledges that Trump verbally, specifically tied aid to the Ukraine to producing dirt on Hillary and Biden.
He didn't want a "dime" going to them until he got that dirt.
Well, that's hindsight for you. No way we could have inferred this from EXISTING TEXTUAL EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY.
(06-19-2020, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Bolton was outing Trumps gay lovers or discussing Trump's sexually transmitted diseases then I would have a problem with him divulging secrets. But these are issues of national security. It is his duty as a patriot to inform potential voters how dangerously incompetent Trump is as President.
BTW I still disagree with Bolton on almost every policy issue. But he has joined a LONG LIST of people I disagree with on policy who also think Trump is dangerously incompetent.
(06-19-2020, 06:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is absolutely nothing congress could do with this type of information. You can't impeach a President for being stupid.
(06-19-2020, 07:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, you're just kinda all over the place with this one.
First you said Bolton shouldn't talk about gossip but "matters of National Security"
Then you come back with "It's OK, he's not talking about anything that congress should know about"
Bolton had his chance to testify under oath. But he takes it "straight to the voters" as long as you pay $32 a copy.
(06-20-2020, 10:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I never said anything like that.
I just said Congress could not impeach Trump for being stupid.
(06-20-2020, 06:39 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did we really need a closed door Congressional hearing for Bolton to tell them Trump asked if Finland was a part of Russia?
So much for fiscal conservatism.
There may be quite a bit more going on there.
Supposedly Trump was considering invading Venezuela, which he called really part of the US, and Putin dissuaded him with a Fox tactic--likening Maduro's opponent to Hillary. Can transcripts confirm this, I wonder?
Add that to the alleged attempt to cut a deal with China to help him get re-elected, and Fred needs to reconsider his claim that we can't impeach a president for "stupid." Depends on how stupid manifests itself as abuse of power in decision after decision.
(06-20-2020, 11:38 PM)Dill Wrote: There may be quite a bit more going on there.
Supposedly Trump was considering invading Venezuela, which he called really part of the US, and Putin dissuaded him with a Fox tactic--likening Maduro's opponent to Hillary. Can transcripts confirm this, I wonder?
Add that to the alleged attempt to cut a deal with China to help him get re-elected, and Fred needs to reconsider his claim that we can't impeach a president for "stupid." Depends on how stupid manifests itself as abuse of power in decision after decision.
For matters of national security or criminal activity; sure. For general stupidity like staring directly into a solar eclipse; not so much.
Most of what has leaked is National Enquirer level gossip. Some of the accusations paint Bolton as an enabler who stood by and did nothing and the Republican Senate wouldn’t have acted anyway. It just makes them look more like the selfish A-holes we already know them to be if that is possible.
Especially, when Bolton criticizes the Democrats for not using more criminal activity he knew of, but refused to testify about.
(06-19-2020, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Bolton was outing Trumps gay lovers or discussing Trump's sexually transmitted diseases then I would have a problem with him divulging secrets. But these are issues of national security. It is his duty as a patriot to inform potential voters how dangerously incompetent Trump is as President.
BTW I still disagree with Bolton on almost every policy issue. But he has joined a LONG LIST of people I disagree with on policy who also think Trump is dangerously incompetent.
Why did you purposely choose to say "gay lovers" instead of just lovers? This is what I was referencing a few months ago when I discussed people using "gay" in an attempt to be humorous, without concern that it may be seen as a pejorative usage by those who are actually gay.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
