Bolton Revelation

@mott-the-hoople said
@mchill
“
It was the worst possible time for this news to come out.“

and you are too dumb to see what is happening...kavanaugh part 2

many gop and dem alike dislike Trump...better known as the establishment

It is rather spectacular that democrats are telling us that we should believe a man that they insist lied about WMD's in Iraq. But then, Mr. Bolton has some books to sell.

Idiots.

@moonbus said
The justice dept. indicted Russian operatives on charges of manipulating the 2016 election, from Russia. Why shouldn’t they be able to investigate corruption charges against an American operating in Ukraine?

Announcing an investigation is pretty stupid, if you want to catch a thief. Announcing an investigation just gives the suspects chance to destroy evidence. That is exactly what debunks Trump’s claim that he was interested in combating corruption.

It depends on the rules. It's easier for me to state the rules for England and Wales and try to extrapolate to the US. This is what the Crown Prosecution says:

In cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), the common law position is that an offence must have a "substantial connection with this jurisdiction" for courts in England and Wales to have jurisdiction. It follows that, where a substantial number of the activities constituting a crime takes place within England and Wales, the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction unless it can be argued, on a reasonable view, that the conduct ought to be dealt with by the courts of another country (R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No.4) [2004] 3 WLR 229, per Lord Chief Justice Woolf).

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jurisdiction

since this is under common law it is likely that the US would have similar rules and regard interference by Russian nationals as "a substantial connection" with their Jurisdiction.

British subjects may be tried for some offences wherever they are committed where a statute allows it [1]:
Sexual offences against children (s. 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008);
Offences listed in schedule 1 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, this includes murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, GBH, rape and some firearms offences;
Terrorism;
Fraud and dishonesty;
Bribery (The Bribery Act 2010)

According to the Wikipedia page the US has no such legislation [2]. This means that it is possible that the Department of Justice has no power to prosecute a US citizen for corruption in a foreign country, as it's not clear what the "substantial connection with this jurisdiction" is, other than Biden's nationality. Ukraine, on the other hand, can investigate, and it would be a lot easier for them to do it.

It's easy for me to be wrong about this as I may have misunderstood UK law and I'm on dicey grounds trying to extrapolate to the US, but I knew where to look for the UK rules.

[1] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/jurisdiction
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction#United_States

@whodey said
It is rather spectacular that democrats are telling us that we should believe a man that they insist lied about WMD's in Iraq. But then, Mr. Bolton has some books to sell.

Idiots.

LOL...
It is rather spectacular that republicans are telling us that we should believe a man that has been proven to have lied over 16,000 times in the last three years. But then, Mr. Dump has a election he'd like to win. lol...
Idiots! lol

@deepthought said
It depends on the rules. It's easier for me to state the rules for England and Wales and try to extrapolate to the US. This is what the Crown Prosecution says:[quote]In cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), the common law position is that an offence must have a "substantial connection with this jurisdiction" for c ...[text shortened]... /legal-guidance/jurisdiction
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction#United_States

Ukrainian prosecutors concluded long ago that there was no basis for any charges against Hunter Biden:

"A former Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated a gas company tied to Hunter Biden said Thursday that there was no evidence the former vice president's son engaged in illegal activity.

"From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” Yuriy Lutsenko told The Washington Post.

Lutsenko, who served as Ukraine's prosecutor general from May 2016 until last month, closed the investigation into the gas company Burisma and its oligarch owner in 2017, The New York Times has reported. "

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/hunter-biden-did-not-violate-anything-former-ukrainian-prosecutor-says-n1059136

@deepthought said
It depends on the rules. It's easier for me to state the rules for England and Wales and try to extrapolate to the US. This is what the Crown Prosecution says:[quote]In cases involving England and Wales and other jurisdictions (including non-EU countries), the common law position is that an offence must have a "substantial connection with this jurisdiction" for c ...[text shortened]... /legal-guidance/jurisdiction
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction#United_States

On the other hand, any claim that Joe Biden, while Vice-President, improperly "extorted" the Ukraine by joining in the international chorus demanding prosecutor Shokin's resignation would obviously not be prosecutable under Ukrainian law.

EDIT: If you are interested, this article gives an excellent synopsis of the Biden-Shokin affair: https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/

@whodey said
It is rather spectacular that democrats are telling us that we should believe a man that they insist lied about WMD's in Iraq. But then, Mr. Bolton has some books to sell.

Idiots.

Well, I'm sure Trump's first class legal team would easily expose Bolton as the self-serving liar Donald claims him to be.

So you and your right wing buds have nothing to fear from his testimony, do you?

@no1marauder
Thanks for the link, I read the start and will finish it over the weekend.

@sonhouse said
@Mott-The-Hoople
If you had any brains left after being captured by Putin, you might have figured out WHY some of the testimony was behind closed doors. I would explain it to you but you would just spout more of your handlers nonsense so climb back in the hole you came from.

But you know why. You know the why of everything.

@whodey
Ah, another Trumpite speaks out since you were present at all those meetings you really have the creds for such pronouncements.

@AverageJoe1

I know the why of THAT bit. Figure it our for yourself comrade.

Perhaps the title of the thread should be "Bolton Revelations". New info in the NYT today:

" Trump asked Bolton to call Zelensky to ensure he would meet w/Giuliani. Cipollone and Mulvaney were in room."

" President Trump's direct role in the Ukraine pressure campaign was earlier than known. He told John Bolton in May to help, and several aides witnessed it, Bolton's book says.:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/trump-bolton-ukraine.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

The contours of the extortion campaign are already clear; Rudy started trying to get meetings with Zelensky to pressure him to announce Biden investigations and other moves that would politically aid Trump shortly after his election win, but the Ukrainian President kept blowing him off. So by late June, the Donald decided to ramp up the pressure by cutting off appropriated military aid needed by the Ukranians to resist the Russian incursions in Eastern Ukraine. Only after the scheme became public AND Zelensky had promised to announce such investigations on CNN, was the aid freeze lifted. And Bolton was asked to resign and did at the same time. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/john-bolton-out-as-national-security-advisor

EDIT: For those without NYT access: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-told-bolton-to-help-his-ukraine-pressure-campaign-book-says/ar-BBZwF5h?li=BBnb7Kz

@no1marauder
But Friday the rePUTINicans will be day of the Trump coronation as King Trump.
Above the law by definition since he is now King of America.
Rand Paul has already outed the whistleblower so he or she better go into hiding.
I don't know which rePUTINicans I hate more, Trump, Moscow Mitch, Linsey Graham Cracker, Rand Paul, William Barr none, Pompeo, Jordan. All of them corrupt to the core.

@sonhouse said
@no1marauder
But Friday the rePUTINicans will be day of the Trump coronation as King Trump.
Above the law by definition since he is now King of America.
Rand Paul has already outed the whistleblower so he or she better go into hiding.
I don't know which rePUTINicans I hate more, Trump, Moscow Mitch, Linsey Graham Cracker, Rand Paul, William Barr none, Pompeo, Jordan. All of them corrupt to the core.

The Republicans have thrown in hook, line and sinker behind a strategy i.e. no witnesses at the impeachment trial - that 70-75% of American voters reject.

And that strategy will not prevent the truth from coming out.

We'll see what that means for Trump and the 23 Republican Senate seats up in November.

@no1marauder
The only kicker is republican voter suppression and gerrymandering which means Dems have to win with at LEAST a 10% advantage to win, that is how far the repubs have tilted the scales.

Hopefully we can do that come November.

@no1marauder said
The Republicans have thrown in hook, line and sinker behind a strategy i.e. no witnesses at the impeachment trial - that 70-75% of American voters reject.

And that strategy will not prevent the truth from coming out.

We'll see what that means for Trump and the 23 Republican Senate seats up in November.

5 investigations, mueller and 18 lawyers, Schiff, 3 years, full blown impeachment, all that, and you think that wasn’t enough? Good gracious. (Sorry, my granny just typed that)