world

Judge weighs bid to stop release of John Bolton's book

23 Comments
By ERIC TUCKER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

DOJ has a point. The book will damage national security because the rest of the world will see what a complete ***** is in charge here. But that ship sailed awhile ago, so...

5 ( +6 / -1 )

“If the First Amendment stands for anything, it is that the Government does not have the power to clasp its hand over the mouth of a citizen attempting to speak on a matter of great public import,”

Trump/barr once again ignoring the 1st Amendment in their efforts to block criticisms of Trump.

Using the Department of Justice, Trump/barr, continue their attempts to look out for their respective personal interests while pushing for greater powers for the executive, powers greater than most believe the US Constitution allows.

According to the DOJ website, here is the agency's mission:

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

Nothing about serving the president. (And if all Trump's backers have is 'wingman', you're saying you can't defend him.)

Curious that on this DOJ page I CANNOT find a mention of the Constitution. hmmm

https://www.justice.gov/about#:~:text=To%20enforce%20the%20law%20and,to%20ensure%20fair%20and%20impartial

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Trump/barr once again ignoring the 1st Amendment in their efforts to block criticisms of Trump.

Wrong, the book was not entirely vetted, they have every constitutional right to safeguard our national security.

Using the Department of Justice, Trump/barr, continue their attempts to look out for their respective personal interests while pushing for greater powers for the executive, powers greater than most believe the US Constitution allows.

Liberals could care less about the constitution unless it feeds and supports their political narrative, then and only then is it of great concern to them.

Nothing about serving the president. (And if all Trump's backers have is 'wingman', you're saying you can't defend him.)

Eric Holder proudly proclaimed himself as Obama's wingman.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Wrong, the book was not entirely vetted, they have every constitutional right to safeguard our national security.

But the article says:

In late April, Ellen Knight, the career official with whom he had worked most closely and who had done a line-by-line edit, notified him that she had completed her revisions and that the revised manuscript did not contain classified information.

Sounds like the book was vetted and cleared to me...

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@bas4fLiberals could care less about the constitution unless it feeds and supports their political narrative,

If part of 'their' ('liberals', another of Trump's hordes of 'them') 'political narrative' is defending constitutional provisions, for example maintaining a balance and separation of powers, I think most Americans, with the exception of Trump's alt right followers who prefer authoritarianism, would support the 'liberals'.

Nothing about serving the president. (And if all Trump's backers have is 'wingman', you're saying you can't defend him.)

@bas4fffEric Holder proudly proclaimed himself as Obama's wingman

In other words, you can't defend Trump.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Sounds like the book was vetted and cleared to me...

That's not what the DOJ says

If part of 'their' ('liberals', another of Trump's hordes of 'them') 'political narrative' is defending constitutional provisions, for example maintaining a balance and separation of powers, I think most Americans, with the exception of Trump's alt right followers who prefer authoritarianism, would support the 'liberals'.

Interesting, you just deflected and described the liberal mob in a nutshell, the only thing is that you and all radical liberals think by bullying, tearing up the constitution in the name if equal rights or destroying our very foundation and culture in order to get votes and ask for forgiveness for something no one alive today was responsible for and if that can help the whacked liberal authoritarian power grab, so be it.

In other words, you can't defend Trump.

I don't need to, he does a fantastic job all by himself

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This is a new strategy, to say its already released (before the release date) and to get it in the hands of every Trump hating journalist you can. Everybody has it, what can we do, they claim?

You can tell everyone who has it to return it by end of the week, as it has classified information. Anyone who doesnt, has classified information without authority and is subject to prosecution. problem solved.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

And more entertainment today as Repubs call Bolton a "traitor" - oh my - can you imagine that? Their Great Conservative Savior is now just a lying, backstabbing, traitor?

Well, at least we now know who Trump will now take a knee for - when he bends down to "plead" with the Communist Chinese leader for election help...

We might as well call Trump "Don the Drug Kingpin" - he makes more "drug deals" than any Mexican cartel head...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@basf4tearing up the constitution in the name if equal rights

That's the first I've heard anyone say equal rights provisions are unconstitutional.

or destroying our very foundation

Odd turnabout from Trump supporters. So many had claimed during the election they wanted Trump to undermine the principles the republic was built on, and have cheered on his moves to do so. So many Trump/alt right backers have said they need to have private arsenals to overthrow the government. I thought they themselves wanted to destroy the 'very foundation'. Have they now switched to support for the 'establishment'?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

That's the first I've heard anyone say equal rights provisions are unconstitutional.

Do liberals even know what that means?

Odd turnabout from Trump supporters. So many had claimed during the election they wanted Trump to undermine the principles the republic was built on,

The Washington swamp yes, but undermining our history and culture, no.

So many Trump/alt right backers have said they need to have private arsenals to overthrow the government.

And that never happened, but BLM and the anarchists did, by wait for it....violence and brut force and made people submit, take a knee in submission on the threat of total destruction. Nice.

I thought they themselves wanted to destroy the 'very foundation'.

Of liberals wanting to destroy the 2nd amendment and force Americans to adopt a fascist and socialist radical ideology. That is exactly what they want to destroy.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

If Bolton's book really has classified material, and it has already been sent out and read by people with no clearance or need to know, then there would be an arrest instead of a lawsuit. Yes, someone is lying, and probably enough blame for both sides. The classified material allegation is clearly fake, though.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What a perfect question...no wonder Trump had a "senior moment" and froze...

*CBS News White House correspondent Paula Reid asked President Trump Thursday why he kept "hiring people that you believe are wackos and liars" following Trump's angry reaction to claims made by former National Security Adviser John Bolton in a forthcoming book.*

Trump did not respond to Reid's question, which came at the end of a White House roundtable with state governors on reopeing small businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-paula-reid-trump-wackos-liars-bolton

So, how many "wackos and liars" has Trump hired, then fired or had them resign?

The number currently is 415....yes, Donald has invited 415 people into his administration that were let go or resigned....and that he later insulted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations#:~:text=As%20of%20May%2025%2C%202020,names%20dismissed%20and%2For%20resigned.

Geez, what kind of success rate is that? No wonder his Casinos go bankrupt.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This book MUST be stopped. Another crazy guy wanting attention and bad mouthing the President. When will these liberals give up and respect the office?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The classified material allegation is clearly fake, though.

You wouldn't know that and you can't make that determination.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

CBS News White House correspondent Paula Reid asked President Trump Thursday why he kept "hiring people that you believe are wackos and liars" following Trump's angry reaction to claims made by former National Security Adviser John Bolton in a forthcoming book.

Trump did not respond to Reid's question, which came at the end of a White House roundtable with state governors on reopeing small businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.

He doesn't need to

So, how many "wackos and liars" has Trump hired, then fired or had them resign?

Obama kept his. lol

The number currently is 415....yes, Donald has invited 415 people into his administration that were let go or resigned....and that he later insulted...

The swamp is thick and to add to that, he should have never kept the other 400 Obama holdovers, should have done like Reagan did and let go all of them, would had significantly drained a lot of that muck.

Geez, what kind of success rate is that? No wonder his Casinos go bankrupt.

Pretty good when you consider, these people serve at the pleasure of the President and he can hire or fire anyone he wants so good on him, he should be with the people he trusts.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Trump has never respected the dignity of the presidency and Oval Office.

If you say that then the last admin completely barfed all over it.

From his hiring and firing, Trump is a bad judge of character.

That's debatable, but feeling the pulse of the people and the economy, like a laser.

This week one of his highest ranking African Americans resigned over his attitude on racism.

If he thinks it is racially implied, he can leave, Trump can always hire someone else.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Wrong

No, it's right.

since America and the rest of the world is not in recession it's in depression.

That has nothing to do with Trump. talk to China, WHO, Fauci and Cuomo that pushed for the lockdown, but now that it's over, there's no going back to that and the economy can pick up and the markets see Trump is the man with the steam engine when it comes to the economy.

You obviously don't know who I was talking about.

I do, that is why I interjected.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

He couldn't....

He doesn't need to.

Nope, these were people he picked - then he fired...not a very good judge of character, is he...

Some may think that, others don't.

You just said the President was "pretty good" at selecting "liars and wackos"... OK....

All businessmen and politicians are to a degree.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites