Bolten says trump wanted the aid frozen until he had answers to inquires sought

[Sam]

The implication is, of course, that he will be in violation of the law.

Suppose it's true that his manuscript does contain classified and top secret information. Is it not the duty of the relevant agencies to inform him and give him the opportunity to rectify the matter? That can not be reasonably construed as a threat.

If the implication, of course, is that Bolton would be in violation of federal law then the letter is saying, by implication, that publishing the material without change will make Bolton liable for legal suits and punishment.

That is, of course, a legal threat, meaning that the headline is accurate. Whether it's a justified threat of legal action or not was not at issue.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

If the implication, of course, is that Bolton would be in violation of federal law then the letter is saying, by implication, that publishing the material without change will make Bolton liable for legal suits and punishment.

That is, of course, a legal threat, meaning that the headline is accurate. Whether it's a justified threat of legal action or not was not at issue.

--Sam

Informing someone of the consequences if they break the law is not a threat.

Again, if the manuscript contains classified information, is it not the relevant agency's duty to inform Bolton of this fact?

And anyway, the leak happened AFTER Bolton received the letter, which upends your preferred narrative.

[RumTumTugger]

Good catch.

So the leak happened after Bolton received the letter. Interesting. Was this Bolton's way of retaliating?

very interesting is this Bolton or the Democrats doing to the White house what they falsely accuse Trump of doing the the Ukraine? more of Saul Alinsky's tactics?

[demi-conservative]

CNN claimed that there was a "formal threat". This is blatantly false, and trying to spin the contents of the letter as an implied threat doesn't change anything, Wormtongues.

[Sam]

Informing someone of the consequences if they break the law is not a threat.

Again, if the manuscript contains classified information, is it not the relevant agency's duty to inform Bolton of this fact?

And anyway, the leak happened AFTER Bolton received the letter, which upends your preferred narrative.

I haven't proposed any narrative regarding the WH letter and, yes, saying "If you publish this as is, there are legal punishments" is a threat.

"Put down the gun or I'll shoot!" is a threat, whether it comes from an officer speaking to a burglar or a burglar speaking to an officer -- one is a justifiable threat and the other not.

Failure or refusal to acknowledge such an obvious point presents evidence of ulterior motive.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Saying, essentially, "If you publish this classified information then you will be in violation of federal law and your non-disclosure agreement" is not a threat, it's simply stating a fact.

And another hole in this fake news story: the letter didn't even come from the White House, it came from the National Security Council.

Basically, the whole "Trump is threatening Bolton!" narrative is in shambles at this point.

[JimL]

Saying, essentially, "If you publish this classified information then you will be in violation of federal law and your non-disclosure agreement" is not a threat, it's simply stating a fact.

And another hole in this fake news story: the letter didn't even come from the White House, it came from the National Security Council.

Basically, the whole "Trump is threatening Bolton!" narrative is in shambles at this point.

But as we all know, it's just a continuation of the Trump administrations attempt to cover up any and all evidence. Bolton knows what would be classified and what not to put in the book which he knows would have to go to the NSC for review before it could be published. If they should find anything in there thats classified, they could surely detect and edit it out in no time.

[lilpixieofterror]

I haven't proposed any narrative regarding the WH letter and, yes, saying "If you publish this as is, there are legal punishments" is a threat.

"Put down the gun or I'll shoot!" is a threat, whether it comes from an officer speaking to a burglar or a burglar speaking to an officer -- one is a justifiable threat and the other not.

Failure or refusal to acknowledge such an obvious point presents evidence of ulterior motive.

--Sam

Sam Logic^TM it means Trump threatened to shoot every American.

[DivineOb]

Again, here is the *definition* of threat

a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

It *exactly* describes "If you publish this classified information then you will be in violation of federal law and your non-disclosure agreement"

Shocking, or maybe not so, that Trumpers want to quibble over the use of that specific word rather than anything more substantive.

[Mountain Man]

You're stretching the definition of "threat" to the point that the word almost becomes meaningless. The way you're attempting to use it, telling someone "If you don't wear a seatbelt, you could die in a car accident" is a threat.

[DivineOb]

You're stretching the definition of "threat" to the point that the word almost becomes meaningless. The way you're attempting to use it, telling someone "If you don't wear a seatbelt, you could die in a car accident" is a threat.

Take it up with Google.

[Tassman]

Interesting interview with John Bolton who unapologetically says he would be willing to lie in order to defend the "truth".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...me_continue=86

Unlike Trump's multiple lying this example is highly qualified by exceptional circumstances. The fact is that Bolton has President Trump directly tied to the withholding of funds to Ukraine, i.e. the firsthand account of the link between the aid and investigations. This warrants direct cross examination in the Senate trial.

[Mountain Man]

Again, we don't know what Bolton actually said. This is all based on what the disreputable New York Times says that anonymous sources claim the draft manuscript says.

But let's suppose it's true, that this was an idea floated by Trump in a high level meeting with Bolton. So what? By all accounts, it was never put into action because nobody down the chain of command was ever given a direct order to that end. Certainly nobody in the Ukraine government was given such an ultimatum. In fact, when Mr. Sondland asked for clarification, he was clearly told "no quid pro quo". And then, of course, there's the phone call transcript which doesn't mention releasing aid in exchange for the investigations. For that matter, Trump didn't even mention withholding aid.

So whatever Trump might have told Bolton behind closed doors doesn't change a single fact of the case.

[lilpixieofterror]

Take it up with Google.

[oxmixmudd]

You're stretching the definition of "threat" to the point that the word almost becomes meaningless. The way you're attempting to use it, telling someone "If you don't wear a seatbelt, you could die in a car accident" is a threat.

You are being stubborn and simply disingenuous. It was in fact a threat. They may have theoretically had grounds to issue it, but it was a threat nonetheless.