Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says
Source: New York Times
Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the presidents impeachment trial.
President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
The presidents statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trumps requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.
Mr. Boltons explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trumps impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.
Multiple people described Mr. Boltons account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the books publication or omit key passages.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)...and, if they cave to McConnell and vote to not allow witnesses, this will be another of their opponents campaign commercials. Mark it down, fuck them.
Maxheader
(4,373 posts)I'm waiting for one to admit to this...now, as the gop senate refutes the dems charges...
PatSeg
(47,501 posts)Bayard
(22,100 posts)Well, that will never see the light of day now.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Perseus
(4,341 posts)doing, meet with Rachel Maddow, or one of your favourite non-Faux journalists and tell all. I know you have a book to sell, but the con is going to remain in office if you don't come out, the con will continue with the destruction and giving away the country to Putin, so put a stop to it if your claim of love for the country is real.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)I never thought I'd see Bolton as a possible savior of our democracy.
PSPS
(13,603 posts)paleotn
(17,931 posts)The country is on down the list...somewhere.
bluestarone
(16,976 posts)djacq
(1,634 posts)burrowowl
(17,641 posts)John Dean has
Roy Rolling
(6,918 posts)Foiled by that pesky 1st Amendment.
paleotn
(17,931 posts)Keep up the pressure. * has got to stroke out eventually.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,035 posts)wishstar
(5,270 posts)"The Associated Press has not confirmed the content of Bolton's draft book. A person familiar with the matter told the AP the book had been submitted to the White House for pre-publication review, which is standard for the work of former officials with security clearances. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject.
The book's publisher, Simon & Schuster, declined to comment.
Sarah Tinsley, an adviser to Bolton, said: The ambassador's manuscript was transmitted to the White House in hard copy several weeks ago for pre-publication review by the NSC. The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period.
Bolton attorney Charles J. Cooper said in a statement that the pre-publication review process had been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/report-bolton-trump-tied-ukraine-funds-biden-probe-68551044?cid=clicksource_4380645_4_three_posts_card_hed
elleng
(130,974 posts)and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript.'
Suggests this disclosure came from within the WH. 'Anonymous???'
wishstar
(5,270 posts)Schmidt clearly implied that leaking was from WH insiders.
Sorry I missed Schmidt.