re: DIMs demand Bolton testify after NY Times report on his book

Outside shot it could be as simple as Dems are trying to make everyone so very damn sick and tired of the lunacy in order to wear everyone down to the point where enough people give in at the voting booth just to stop the misery. Misery bordering on worse.

That made my stomach hurt.

yes, agreed. we needed the R's to end the sham of a trial on Wed. after voting for no more witnesses.

even if this sham NYTimes story is accurate it is nothing new that Bolton supposedly said in his lame book.

but the writing is on the wall. it could take 8 weeks for the E.P. to wrangle in the courts. then Trump will say do it testify, then they will make something else up. the WB and other witnesses will never show. it is a trap.

they are indeed wearing down in the most evil PsyOp with the media in history.

Bolton lawyer slams 'corrupted' White House review process after book leak

A lawyer for former national security adviser John Bolton accused White House officials of leaking details of Bolton's forthcoming book following a report that the manuscript contained the allegation that President Trump directly tied security aid for Ukraine to the country investigating his political rivals.

Attorney Charles Cooper said in a statement to The Associated Press and other news outlets that he submitted Bolton's manuscript to the National Security Council's Records Management Division to review its contents for classified information on Dec. 30, a standard practice for former government officials writing books.

Cooper said he was given assurances at the time that the manuscript would not be seen by those outside staffers involved in the review process.

“It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those involved in reviewing the manuscript," Cooper said in a statement.

The attorney's statement stopped short of confirming the contents of the Times' report. Cooper did not respond to requests for comment from The Hill.

The newspaper reported Sunday evening that Bolton writes in the manuscript of an August meeting with Trump in which the president said he wanted to continue a freeze on nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine until the government there agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats.

The revelation complicates Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate, where senators are bitterly divided over whether to hear from witnesses like Bolton or move straight to a vote to acquit or convict the president.

Bolton's lawyer saying he is so pissed this was leaked yet fails to deny it. Trump should just tell attn whore Bolton to testify and nobody will buy his book (as the progs got what they wanted) But like Trump releasing the transcript, they don't care there will be another trap.

They want Bolton to be Christine Blasey Ford. Even though Bolton will say nothing no one doesn't know. Romney, Collins, Murkowski, will clutch their pearls.

Aren't we all sick of it? Such a waste of time.

Give the libs Bolton and only Bolton. We will take the Whistleblower.

I was just thinking the other day that someone has to have seen Bolton's manuscript.

It's almost comical this comes out now.

my understanding is that vindman's brother is nsa ethics manager in charge of reviewing prepublication documents for security and that bolton's book had to go across his desk. the brothers have adjacent offices

My point (oblique as it may have been) is that this Bolton “revelation” is actually close to the standard of “new evidence,” which would provide some justification for seeking his testimony AFTER the House proceedings. You doubtless understood the point, and your response is a reasonable one. Others did not grasp the underlying framework. The poster immediately before you is a perfect example.

I have a nasty tendency of often assuming that it is not necessary to explicitly connect ALL the dots for the reader. The more I post here, the more I realize that my assumption may not be valid.