[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, says in his new book that the House in its impeachment inquiry should have investigated President Trump not just for pressuring Ukraine to incriminate his domestic foes but for a variety of instances when he sought to intervene in law enforcement matters for political reasons.

I've learned to wait for the final verdict before jumping to conclusions. So am highly inclined to not comment on any of this when it is at the accusation stage. But am curious if Trump specifically said he that he "sought to intervene" (sought? or did?) for political reasons, or If Bolton assumed that was his motivation.

Mr. Bolton describes several episodes where the president expressed willingness to halt criminal investigations “to, in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked,” citing cases involving major firms in China and Turkey. “The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Mr. Bolton writes, adding that he reported his concerns to Attorney General William P. Barr.
Mr. Bolton also adds a striking new allegation by saying that Mr. Trump overtly linked trade negotiations to his own political fortunes by asking President Xi Jinping of China to buy a lot of American agricultural products to help him win farm states in this year’s election. Mr. Trump, he writes, was “pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.”

Again, did Trump specifically say to Xi that the reason he wanted China to buy American farm products was to ensure he'd win? Or, again, was that Bolton's assumption?

Pretty obvious why a Trump will do anything to stop this from coming out ahead of the election, Bolton knows he is a crook, con man and likely a traitor.

Bolton may "know" all that and can prove it . . . or he can assume that and prove nothing. Wait and see before put foot in mouth.