The flip flop @ Fox News

https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2020/01/28/john-bolton-from-fox-news-contributor-to-criticism-stelter-pkg-ctn-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/business-media/

Fox News, who paid John Bolton for 11 years, turns on one of its own. He used to be truthful and honest. Now he is a “tool for the left”.

I am not a John Bolton fan, but I will say that he is honest and forthcoming about his thoughts and ideas. I don’t see any reason to doubt him now.

87 thoughts on “The flip flop @ Fox News

  1. “Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening. And I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting VP Biden at this point?” Joni Ernst, Iowa

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/joni-ernst-joe-biden-senate-impeachment-trial/index.html

    What we all thought. This Ukraine thing was never about Ukraine at all was it. It was from the beginning a GOP/Trump effort to destroy the Democratic front runner.

    The Bolton revelations just made things a bit more complicated. Now the GOP Senators have to pick the pike for resting their heads.

    Word has it that the White House switchboard lit up with calls from irate Senators complaining about being blindsided.

    “You promised the truth would never come out, dammit!”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. {The Bolton revelations just made things a bit more complicated.}

      Yesterday, Alan Dershowitz proved that John Bolton’s little book is an irrelevancy of the highest degree.

      Aside from that, the NY Times’ admits that they have not seen it — their unverified information and unnamed sources are just rumors and/or conspiracy theories.

      LTC Vindman’s twin brother is reportedly the one who is leaking it and he is just as likely to be feeding them BS as anything else.

      Like

      1. Dershowitz proved nothing. It was his opinion that even if Trump did extort Ukraine for domestic political advantages if was not an impeachable offense.

        Except for others on team Trump, few scholars and constitutional gurus agree.

        That is not a defense, that is an excuse. As in “we are really sorry Trump did a terrible thing, but please let him stay so we can appoint more judges, etc.”

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Adam Schiff is a sociopath. He is one of the most diabolically dishonest human beings in the history of American politics. He’s putting the country through all of this to satisfy his avaricious lust for power. He deserves to meet the same fate that Mr Hamilton suffered at the hands of a patriot.

          The House vote to impeach was an ultra-hyper-partisan Dem “extravaganza.”

          By contrast, the Senate vote to acquit will be bipartisan.

          Accordingly, historians will conclude that a rabidly partisan throng of House Dems lost their minds — but fortunately, a rational group of Senators, diffused their insanity.

          Like

          1. I’m sorry, but you accidentally mixed Schiff’s name with Trump.

            An oversight that I am pointing out in the name of congeniality.

            I am sure you will reciprocate. 😇

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @Tabor

            Are you going to let this jackass pollute this site with such garbage and now death threats? Sometime the rhetoric can get a little heated but this is not acceptable.

            Like

          3. Relax . . . If you had been paying attention to shampeachment, you would know that Mr Hamilton has been mentioned quite a few times. In that light, Mr Four Pinocchios is surely deserving of an Aaron-Burr-like challenge.

            Like

          4. RE: “Are you going to let this jackass pollute this site with such garbage and now death threats?”

            You assume too much. There’s no death threat.

            Like

          5. “He deserves to meet the same fate that Mr Hamilton suffered at the hands of a patriot.”

            While I agree that Mr. Murphy is being a bit hyperbolic, calling for a duel in which Mr. Schiff is killed is close to a death threat.

            Like

          6. I am not being in the least “hyperbolic.” Talk of a “patriot” doing to Schiff what was done to Alexander Hamilton is dangerous and poisonous rhetoric. At the very least the owner of this forum should deliver a stern warning and if such rhetoric is repeated, the jackass in question should not be welcome to post anything further.

            Like

          7. @TK

            “Relax” says the jackass. Death threats are no big deal. Just a part of normal political discourse. Sort of like when Dear Leader tweets his predictions of punishment to the sociopaths that make up a good part of his base . . .

            “Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”

            No, Dear Leader, not “yet.”

            Trump does not belong in the Oval Office and people like you do not belong ANYWHERE where decent people try to exchange views on the issues of the day.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “It was his opinion that even if Trump did extort Ukraine for domestic political advantages if was not an impeachable offense.”

        No. He argued that Trump committed no crime or crime-like offense, and that the proper conduct of his office is not impeachable.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Since when is attempted extortion or bribery proper conduct of a President of the US?”

          It isn’t. But why should we assume that the president attempted extortion or bribery? In particular, neither is alleged in the articles of impeachment. Still, if you have real evidence that either occurred, let’s see it.

          Like

          1. Apparently John Bolton says so. And I have yet to see anyone refute that revelation. And abuse of power through attempted extortion or bribery is there, if you look honestly at it.

            Personally, I have no first hand knowledge of Trump’s activities wrt to Ukraine. Neither does Joe or Hunter Biden, which makes our testimony irrelevant. However, Mr. Bolton seems to, so let’s hear from him under oath.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “And I have yet to see anyone refute that revelation.”

            I have. Repeatedly. No one knows what John Bolton says, not even the NYT, which broke the story.

            Like

          3. All the more reason for him to testify in the Senate.

            AS far as refutation: People saying that isn’t want happened are simply trying to prevent the truth form coming out. You don’t know the truth and neither do those who refute it. OK, Trump refuted it, but when he speaks the chances are greater that he is lying than telling the truth. And the LOUDER he denies what Bolton said, the more I tend to believe Bolton.

            Like

  2. RE: “I am not a John Bolton fan, but I will say that he is honest and forthcoming about his thoughts and ideas.”

    The question is: What thoughts and ideas do we imagine Bolton is being honest and forthcoming about?

    Like

    1. The biggest neocon of all has relevant information about the biggest con artist of all. While many of his views and policies I find abhorrent, you always know where you stand with Bolton.

      But I see that, like Fox News, you question the veracity of what he has to say. Which I am not the least bit surprised by.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “But I see that, like Fox News, you question the veracity of what he has to say.”

      You assume too much. I actually questioned WHAT he has to say, or, more specifically what you and others imagine it will be.

      Like

      1. RE: “My comments was more about his veracity”

        Yes, and my question is, What do we imagine Bolton is saying that is veritable?

        Like

          1. I take it you can’t answer the question. First you avoid it, then you pretend to have secret knowlege.

            Like

          2. If you haven’t been paying attention to the news, don’t expect me to tell you. You’ll ignore or downplay anything I tell you. So in order to avoid further injury, I will tell you to look it up. Otherwise, ignorance is bliss.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “If you haven’t been paying attention to the news, don’t expect me to tell you.”

            If you’re going to accuse others of ignorance, you better be able to show that you have knowledge. So far, despite invitations, you haven’t.

            Like

  3. John Bolton will never rest and will do or say anything, to assure that American soldiers are dying someplace we have no business being.

    Trump did not give him his daily gallon of blood so he will say whatever he needs to to destroy him.

    Like

    1. RE: “John Bolton will never rest and will do or say anything, to assure that American soldiers are dying someplace we have no business being.”

      Yes, you have to question the motives and sensibilities of those who are lining up behind him over his “bombshell,” whatever they imagine it to be. Is it really worth removing president from office to keep the blood and blood money flowing?

      As Qanon says, “These people are sick.”

      Like

          1. It’s bad enough that either one is quoting the other. That is not a way our leaders should respond to those that oppose him. I guess maybe I have a higher standard than you when it comes to expectations of decorum and propriety from our leaders.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “I guess maybe I have a higher standard than you when it comes to expectations of decorum and propriety from our leaders.”

            I wouldn’t call your standard higher. I would call it fascist.

            Like

          3. Fascist to expect our leaders to not call their fellow American human scum or enemies of the people? Or to mock disabled individuals? I’m sorry, but if that is fascist in your mind, then so be it.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “Fascist to expect our leaders to not call their fellow American human scum or enemies of the people?”

            Fascist for expecting a president to give up his First Amendment rights.

            Like

          5. Wow. Really? Is that what I did when I said our leaders should comport themselves with some decorum and not denigrate his opponents or detractors? I guess I missed it. But then again hate speech, regardless of the source, is still hate speech and IS not becoming of an elected leader of this country.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Not surprised you see it that way. You appear to see things through a different lens than the rest of the civilized world. You are entitled to your opinion, but you can take you “fascist” comment. and well, just take it because you only believe what you WANT to believe.

            And yet you don’t refute the statements that Mr. Trump has said the things I have mentioned.

            Like

    2. @Tabor

      “Trump did not give him his daily gallon of blood so he will say whatever he needs to to destroy him.”

      One of your more asinine opinions ever.

      John Bolton is indeed completely wrong-headed in his New American Century daydreams but what evidence do you have that he is out to do anything other than tell the truth. What his book reportedly says is EXACTLY what the evidence has been pointing to since the whistle blower blew his whistle. The only credible explanation for what all these people did is that Trump told them to do it.

      You must be chagrined at this further evidence after spending so much effort making up excuses for Trump’s criminal behavior, but don’t take it out on John Bolton.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “What his book reportedly says is EXACTLY what the evidence has been pointing to since the whistle blower blew his whistle.”

        What EXACTLY would that be?

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          EXACTLY?

          Okay.

          The book and the evidence says that Trump withheld (illegally it turns out) approved military aid until Ukraine complied with his demands for a personal “favor” benefiting not the nation, but only him. You can repeat the lie until you turn blue but there was ZERO national interest reason to open such investigations as were demanded and even less the demanded announcement by the Ukraine President.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “The book and the evidence says that Trump withheld (illegally it turns out) approved military aid until Ukraine complied with his demands for a personal “favor” benefiting not the nation, but only him.”

          Have you read the book? Can you quote it?

          As for the evidence, I challenge to provide it. The impeachment managers certainly have not.

          Like

    3. Like I said: I find his policies abhorrent. That does does not mean he is going to just turn on him with false allegations or statements.

      Your buying into the Fox Flip flop on him. Yet you don’t see your own gullibility.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “Yet you don’t see your own gullibility.”

        Dr. Tabor isn’t gullible. Over the years he has consistently criticised policies of the kind Bolton supports. The accusation that Bolton’s current behavor is self-serving is a legitimate one, even if you disagree with it. Your remark is out of line.

        Like

        1. RE: “He can handle himself quite sufficiently without your assistance.”

          He usually does, but your constant personal attack on other users are getting out of hand.

          Liked by 1 person

    4. This 11th-hour smoke and mirrors stuff might fool poor old dumb blind sheep; however, after the Kavanaugh debacle, I have a hunch that it will only insult GOP Senators — even the “moderate” ones.

      I’m sticking with my original prediction that Dems will not get their wish list.

      Like

  4. Bolton was a hawk, no question. But since he left, there has been nothing but an increase in troops in the Middle East. Not to mention deterioration of relations. But he looked bad, so he left. Resigned or fired. With 10,000 lies to Trump’s credit, I’ll believe resigned.

    Nobody needed Bolton’s book to convict Trump. Nobody with any integrity, that is.

    Already the GOP is running for cover. They have a couple of days for the national attention span to drift while team Trump lies its way around the facts.

    And don’t worry, by the time FOX, the regime, the sycophants in Congress are done with slandering Bolton, it will seem like Dahmer just had a peculiar taste in food.

    Of course there will be some conflicting ethical decisions to be made. After all Bolton donated about $1 million to the GOP over time, including more than a few $10,000 donations to sitting Senators.

    I wonder if some of those pious Republicans are wondering what would Jesus do?

    IMHO

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “They have a couple of days for the national attention span to drift while team Trump lies its way around the facts.”

      What lies do you think team Trump is telling?

      Like

      1. They said the House did not want Bolton to testify.

        The House did want him, he refused, and pursuing a subpoena through the courts could take months. He did say he would testify at the trial.

        That was just on opening day.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. They also said the GOP was completely locked out of the SCIF during hearings held there. The members of the 3 committees conducting the inquiry were all allowed to be there. None of the GOP committee members were locked out.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: They also said the GOP was completely locked out of the SCIF during hearings held there.”

          They actually said the president and his attorneys were locked out, which is true. Also, the rules the House adopted would not have allowed the president’s attorneys to cross-examine witnesses as standard due process rules would.

          Like

          1. @Roberts

            The House committee depositions and closed door testimony were analogous to Grand Jury proceedings. Due process does not include the right of a person being indicted to sit in or have counsel present during such proceedings. That come at the trial. Duh!

            Repeating GOP lies ad nauseum does not make them magically become the truth.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Trump defenders only want the process to favor their man. However, when the process follows the rules for both sides, they scream “It’s not fair!”

            Deflect, distract, de-lovely. (Apologies to Cole Porter) Trump has taken over the GOP so soundly, they have shrunk in fear from any kind of principles they had.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “The House committee depositions and closed door testimony were analogous to Grand Jury proceedings.”

            So what? The House of Representatives is not a grand jury, and shouldn’t act like one.

            Like

          4. @Roberts

            The purpose of those closed door hearings and deposition is to get the facts out. That is why it is important that they are done in the same way that a grand jury operates. There are many reasons including . . .

            1. To ensure that the testimony of each witness is independent and not colored by the testimony of other witnesses.
            2. To protect the witnesses from intimidation while they are testifying.
            3. To protect witnesses from retribution after the testify.
            4. To eliminate posturing and grandstanding and delaying tactics by the ones charged with getting to the facts.

            In short, you are dead wrong. IMHO.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “That is why it is important that they are done in the same way that a grand jury operates.”

            The way a grand jury operates is not consistent with the way House investigations should operate. If grand jury procedures are desirable, the matter should be referred to the Department of Justice, which can convene one.

            Like

      2. RE: “The House did want him, he refused, and pursuing a subpoena through the courts could take months.”

        In other words, the House didn’t want him enough to issue a subpoena.

        The Senate may not be able to get him, or even the specific testimony they want from him without a subpoena, either.

        In any case, the “lie” you cite is only one interpretation of the facts. Other, equally valid interpretations show it is not a lie at all.

        Like

        1. “One interpretation of the facts.”

          Alternative facts, the gift that keeps on giving.

          It is obvious that no matter what I say, you’ll say there is another “interpretation”.

          Of course that is true, but it does not make it the truth.

          Bolton said he would testify at the trial. No court battles. Big difference that makes Trump and his team liars.

          If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.”

          If your argument is that your interpretation of facts must be true because other, equally valid interpretations, don’t make it false, then No, you can’t help me see that. I’d have to be blind.

          Like

  5. Poor old Mr Bolton — he was a dedicated warmongering swamp-stater of the highest degree. No one loved and supported their wars more than he did — but they stabbed him right dead in the back.

    Reportedly, LTC Vindman’s brother is circulating multiple copies of his manuscript throughout the NSC and in effort to influence blind sheep and unnerve “moderate” GOPsters, the NY Times is scheduled to make “strategic” leaks of it all week long — or however many weeks this thing drags on.

    Heck, before it’s over, they’re liable to leak the entire thing, which will render Mr Bolton’s precious book worthless.

    This guy has got to be the stupidest security “expert” in the world!

    Like

    1. The book itself may be worthless for Bolton before all is said and done. But the words in the book could be priceless for the country. Which could then generate ANOTHER book deal for Bolton. Just a spitball theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Reportedly, LTC Vindman’s brother is circulating multiple copies of his manuscript throughout the NSC and in effort to influence”…
        1) I didn’t realize Vindman’s brother had his own manuscript being tossed around the NSC like the lies Trump has been telling us for 4 years (campaign included).

        2) Who is “reporting” this? I’d love to know the source of your information.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. The NY Times’ admits that they have not even seen the book. Accordingly, their unverified information and unnamed sources are just rumors and conspiracy theories. Such things are inadmissible in American courts.

        Like

        1. So let’s hear from the actual source of the manuscript in question. Under oath. In the Senate Chamber. On live TV.

          Breitbart would report the sky was green and the grass were pink (not blue, because, well, Kentucky…) if it would advance Trump’s defense. And if you question the unnamed sources for the NY Times, why don’t you question the unnamed source from Brietbart. Hypocrisy, thy name is Thadd.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Well, the the NY Times is responsible for creating the Bolton hoax. In that light, even an anonymous InfoWars source would be worthy of consideration.

            If a story is false, it does not matter who reports it. Of course, it does not who reports the truth either. The ONLY thing that matters are FACTS.

            Like

          2. Actually, along with the WaPo, CNN and Fox, Breitbart is an element of my news filter. If all four of them are reporting the same thing on a specific topic, I conclude that it is likely true.

            On the other hand, I do not trust sole sources under ANY circumstances.

            Like

  6. How much do those who defend the country hate Trump?

    One advanced copy of Bolton’s book was sent to the NSC to review for any accidental leaks of classified information and for approval to publish. One copy, and to the NSC no less, and they have leaked enough to sway the Senate on witnesses and documents.

    The NSC knows a threat to the nation when they see one, and they do their magic to keep us safe. Sometimes that magic involves, well, dirty tricks.

    Didn’t hear any RWNs complain about the overthrow of duly elected governments or the running of drugs through our borders. Oh, but one little leak from a manuscript…

    You guys should take this opportunity to run a candidate who can beat Hillary in the popular vote this time.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Something seems strange here.

    Such conversations between Bolton and Trump would most certainly be covered by executive privilege, and Bolton’s Non-Disclosure Agreement.

    It seems this leak by the NYT might be a scam to evade Bolton’s legal limits on what he discloses.

    In any case, at this point, I think the GOP is going to have to let Bolton testify under oath, and then prosecute those responsible for publishing privileged and protected information.

    Of course, if Bolton testifies, then the GOP should call it’s entire list that Schiff and Nadler refused to call in the House hearings.

    Like

    1. A friendly reminder the criminal like activity is NOT covered by EP.

      …”those responsible for publishing privileged and protected information. That would be Bolton first and foremost. He wrote the darned thing.

      As far as your list goes, I ask again, for the relevance of Biden, father or son, to the abuse of power or obstruction of Congress charges. And again, the presiding officer can rule on relevance of ANY witnesses requested by either side. They have zero first hand knowledge of Trump’s activities or were they consulted about what to do about Ukraine. If you want THAT information, Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo, Pence and Mulvaney are the witnesses for that.
      If the other investigation that Lindsay the lap dog is supposedly contemplating, then it is the Biden’s to be called. But their relevance to the articles of impeachment are nil.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Even taking the leak as truth(and it may not even be what Bolton wrote) it does not rise to the level of criminality.

        As for the basis for calling the Bidens, Trump’s alleged actions would be an abuse of power ONLY IF they benefited him alone, and not the national interest. If there is probable cause to suspect that the Vice President was corrupt, determining the truth is Trump’s duty, even if it also benefits him. (and of course, it really doesn’t benefit him unless Biden is the nominee. If a scandal prevents Biden’s nomination, Trump does not benefit. )

        Like

        1. What exactly was the benefit to the national interest in Trump asking the Ukrainian President to look into the Biden’s and the COMPLETELY debunked Crowdstrike theory? Your baseless idea that Trump was truly interested in corruption is Ukraine is a bigger smoke screen the the ones that occurred in the Australian bush fires.

          You really are grasping at lots of straws to defend someone you claim to not be fully supportive of.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @Tabor

          Your “analysis” is incredibly shallow. You have missed the point of these illegal smears of Vice President Biden. If “scandal” prevents Biden’s nomination Trump DOES benefit because according to polling, Biden has the best chance of defeating Trump in November. Duh!

          If there IS probable cause – and that means there is EVIDENCE of wrong doing that makes it more likely than not a crime has been committed – where is that EVIDENCE and where are the warrants?

          Liked by 1 person

    2. @Tabor

      I hate to break it to you, but criminal behavior and criminal conspiracy are NOT COVERED by Executive Privilege nor non-disclosure agreements. THAT is very likely why there has been no assertion of Executive Privilege since a judge would be entitled to ALL the facts to determine that Executive Privilege applied.

      Furthermore, silly little Trumpie has personally made factual statements about the contents of his discussions with Bolton. That is another way to make Executive Privilege inoperative.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. So much predetermined hysteria going here. In the real world, I seriously doubt Trump would tell Bolton that any Biden investigations were intended to bolster his campaign and not part of a broader anti-corruption effort. We don’t know what Bolton wrote and if it claims what has been leaked, Trump will clearly say Bolton completely misunderstood or that is Bolton’s interpretation but not the intent or truth. This is not the fatal blow liberal extremists want to claim especially coming from a disgruntled ex-employee. It is still comical that Bolton has already been offered as a swap for Republican witness desires but Democrats have already and continue to refuse the offer. That said, I’m getting the impression this is no real bombshell afterall but a Democrat talking point over nothing.

    Like

    1. The GOP witness list has no relevant witnesses on it. None of the people they want have knowledge of Trump’s actions or intention wrt to the charges in the articles. A separate investigation (which Lindsay the lap dog has discussed) would be the appropriate place for those. Talk about a waste of time and tax dollars.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. It took long enough to get here.
    “It was a misunderstanding.”
    “There was no quid pro quo.”
    “This quid pro quo is normal diplomacy.”
    “There was no crime.”
    “This crime is not an impeachable offense.”
    … and the piece de resistance…
    “When the President does it, it’s not a crime.”

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s