Early Tuesday morning, the Justice Department pushed back on the New York Times’ report on former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript, which contained an explosive account of Bolton’s conversation with Attorney General Bill Barr.
Why - the only way to disprove Bolton’s accusations, are to have him testify. You know - a good cross-examination should result in total exoneration for the Trump Crime Cabal.
I don’t like Bolton’s ideas about how the world should run and how the US should act. But I’ve never had any feeling that he was not strait forward about his ideas and actions. Barr on the other hand is a snake in the grass. So, who do you believe?
“If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own views–views with which Attorney General Bill Barr does not agree,” she continued.
translation. It happened just as Bolton described. But Barr was faking his concern when he spoke to Bolton.
considering that he negotiated a deal, and then came up with a book in less than four months, I’d say that he spent most of those four months proofreading his contemporaneous account of events, rather than actually composing sentences and paragraphs.
This is going to be fun. “Mr. Bolton’s book is entirely a work of fiction and every single thing in it that is bad for Trump or the GOP’s fascist vanguard is a lie…”
The Times had “grossly mischaracterized” the conversation between the two Trump officials.
Or Barr said it, but he was just trying to get Bolton to go out on a limb and say something that could get him removed, clearing the way for the Barr/Giuliani/Pirro takeover of foreign policy.
**"Romney “made a strong pitch” for witnesses during a closed-door lunch of Senate Republicans. **
Romney is now effectively working against party leaders and arguing that the proper way to test each side’s contention is to hear from people directly involved." ~ Kyle Griffen
Well, the knife sharpeners are out. One more ‘lunch’ - and this thing might fall apart.