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

[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."