Jump to content

John "Rage Walrus" Bolton fired


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

It's also already out in the hands of civilians. Wouldn't that just mean government officials or those with security clearances couldn't read it, but it's free reign for anyone else that already has their hands on it?

The publisher said hundreds of thousands of copies have already shipped globally, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

The publisher said hundreds of thousands of copies have already shipped globally, lol.

 

Even if it weren't the case and say Bolton's book was chock full of classified data that for some unknown reason was never cleared by the NSA or whoever reviews this stuff. Unless I'm mistaken, Trump still can't stop the book once it's in civilian hands. He could send the DoJ after Bolton and stop anyone with current security clearances from reading the book, but it ends there.

 

At least that's about how much I remember the last time I went through a clearance review, but I've never claimed my memory was any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Even if it weren't the case and say Bolton's book was chock full of classified data that for some unknown reason was never cleared by the NSA or whoever reviews this stuff. Unless I'm mistaken, Trump still can't stop the book once it's in civilian hands. He could send the DoJ after Bolton and stop anyone with current security clearances from reading the book, but it ends there.

 

At least that's about how much I remember the last time I went through a clearance review, but I've never claimed my memory was any good.

 

I think they can probably stop the publisher from printing new copies but yeah, they can't really do anything to compel you not to read it if you don't have a clearance and there's already plenty of copies out in the wild. I guess they could do what they did with Wikileaks after the Manning and Snowden dumps and warn people off reading it if they ever want to be eligible for a clearance, but that's still not that many more people, plus unlike with the Wikileaks dumps I'm not sure if a future administration would actually hold this one over people's heads if they didn't already have a clearance at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

I think they can probably stop the publisher from printing new copies but yeah, they can't really do anything to compel you not to read it if you don't have a clearance. I guess they could do what they did with Wikileaks after the Manning and Snowden dumps and warn people off reading it if they ever want to be eligible for a clearance, but that's still not that many more people, plus unlike with the Wikileaks dumps I'm not sure if a future administration would actually hold this one over people's heads if they didn't already have a clearance at the time.

 

See, I don't actually know if they can even compel the publisher to stop the presses, so to speak. A functional administration couldn't do anything about literally stolen, actually classified data from being disseminated. I don't know how this one would figure out a way to stop a book with data of questionable classification that likely was already cleared for publishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

See, I don't actually know if they can even compel the publisher to stop the presses, so to speak. A functional administration couldn't do anything about literally stolen, actually classified data from being disseminated. I don't know how this one would figure out a way to stop a book with data of questionable classification that likely was already cleared for publishing.

 

1. I would think it's easier to get a legit publisher to stop than it is to get Wikileaks to stop.

2. Was the previous administration UNABLE to, or did they just not want to amplify/confirm it by fighting that battle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Pentagon papers set the bar extremely high for preventing the dissemination of information in a journalistic capacity.

 

 

If Trump can sue him for any of this stuff it's likely only after he publishes.

 

Basically the bar is lower for Trump's lawyers to say after publication , "He revealed this and it caused this damage and we want this remedy".

 

Just saying "This might be classified, and it might cause this damage, so censor it in perpetuity" is almost certain to fail. And unlike many other cases it's so weak it will likely be dismissed out of hand and not even slow him down.

 

It doesn't help their case that he was already cleared and then Trump appointed a stooge that went back and tried to redo the process, but I don't think they even need that roadbump. The case is just weak regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, osxmatt said:


To be fair, writing a salacious and intentionally misleading book about Trump would be pretty easy. This quote being a prime example.

 

Does this sound like Trump would say? Absolutely. But could Bolton completely make this up, and get people to believe it? Absolutely.

 

And at the core, I believe that to be the issue. It doesn’t really matter (to some degree) whether he said it or not. Just the fact it’s believable is damning.

 

 

Former Mattis speechwriter coroborates it.

 

It's funny because you see the story, see the source, and instinctually want to shy away and say, "Well maybe Bolton misunderstood, or exaggerated, or just has an ax to grind." You don't want to believe a president would actually say that.

 

But time and again Trump proves it's hard for his enemies to make stuff up about him because he really is just that bad.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

1. I would think it's easier to get a legit publisher to stop than it is to get Wikileaks to stop.

2. Was the previous administration UNABLE to, or did they just not want to amplify/confirm it by fighting that battle?

 

Someone that knows better than I really should chime in, but this has always been my understanding of these things. If the publisher, themselves, are not cleared and come into possession of classified information, unknowingly, the government can ask nicely, but they can't stop their 1st amendment rights from shouting them from the mountain tops. That would be because the publisher has no existing relationship certifying that they'll properly handle classified information. There isn't any existing contract between the government and the publisher that would stop the book from being printed. The damage has already been done and the government can instead go after the leaker of said classified data while also issuing a warning to current holders of security clearances that reading the book could be a breach and cause the loss of your clearance. I don't even know if there's any other punishment for anyone that reads the book other than losing their clearance. If I'm right, Bolton would be the only one this administration could go after, but his book was already cleared, so they likely won't have much standing in court. I guess his security clearance could be revoked in that case, for whatever that may be worth.

 

2, no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus, I read the first sentence and this is already insufferable

 

Quote

One attraction of being National Security Advisor is the sheer multiplicity and volume of challenges that confront you.

Multiplicity AND volume of challenges? Just say that there's a lot of challenges, dude. Purple-ass prose.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ricofoley said:

Jesus, I read the first sentence and this is already insufferable

 

Multiplicity AND volume of challenges? Just say that there's a lot of challenges, dude. Purple-ass prose.

 

That must be why it took so long to edit. 

 

 

Usually, for books like this, I assume that they're ghost-written. 

I 100% believe Bolton wrote this in his own hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CayceG said:

 

That must be why it took so long to edit. 

 

 

Usually, for books like this, I assume that they're ghost-written. 

I 100% believe Bolton wrote this in his own hand. 

It's definitely self-important enough in tone from the parts I skimmed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...