NYT Live Updating: 2 GOP senators back proposal to privately see Bolton's manuscript

[Mike 03]

20 minutes ago

Two Republican senators are backing a proposal to make the manuscript of John Bolton’s forthcoming book available in a classified setting to all members of the Senate, an idea some Republicans are considering as they grapple with a new account by the former national security adviser that corroborates a central piece of the impeachment case against President Trump.

Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma and an ally of Mr. Trump, said Monday night that the manuscript amounts to the “minimum amount that we should actually be able to get.”

“I am encouraging the White House, anybody that I can talk to to say: That manuscript is pertinent and we should get access to that manuscript to see what they’re actually saying,” Mr. Lankford said during a livestream on his Facebook page.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, endorsed that proposal on Monday, and reiterated his support on Tuesday, writing on Twitter that he “totally supports” Mr. Lankford’s proposal.

NYT Live Updating Impeachment Blog: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/impeachment-trial-live-01-28#2-republicans-back-proposal-to-privately-see-boltons-manuscript

But I'd rather see Bolton testify publicly. This is a good way to bury the truth behind a "classified setting."

[Ohiogal]

1. Wtf?

Bolton’s book will be public information once it’s published. Why the secret viewing?

[kysrsoze]

2. Fuck this shit. The book is being released 3/17. They're just trying to bury it during the trial.

Such scum.

[Mike 03]

3. A little more:

Attempting to make the manuscript available to senators, however, could create a number of roadblocks. It is unclear whether Mr. Bolton’s publisher would be willing to release the manuscript or whether Mr. Bolton himself would be able to release it under the terms of his contract. In order for the Senate to subpoena the transcript, senators would have to clear a 51 vote threshold that would open up a floodgate of motions, an outcome Republican leadership would find unappealing.

Still, Mr. Lankford said, “My encouragement would be, if John Bolton’s got something to say, there’s plenty of microphones all over the country that he should step forward and start talking about it right now.”

Mr. Lankford, there are microphones in the senate chamber.

[PubliusEnigma]

4. The fact that these die-hards are starting to fold means it is over for Donald J Trump.

[defacto7]

5. They're just trying to keep it off the record, not under oath

and make them look like they're interested. It's a tactic. Not good.

[global1]

6. It's Easy To Interpret A Reading Of A Passage Of A Book Anyway One Wants To.....

You can't ask follow-up questions of the reading. You can't determine the how the real situation that the reading came from went down. The mood, tone or tenor in the room.

We must not let them take the easy way out and just read the manuscript and leave it up to the interpretation of 100 Senators. We must push for Bolton in person - a witness - so that he can give his first hand account as to how things went down with Trump. We must have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions and get to the real gist of the situation.

Everyone needs to be exposed to the same thing at the same time.

[tblue37]

8. Plus he needs to be under oath. nt

[tblue37]

7. Because 100 senators are going to read a full-length book completely & expeditiously.

The GOP senators couldn't even sit through the House Managers' presentations. I can't see them reading the book. They'd just lie, say they read it, and that there's nothing new, pertinent, or damaging in it.

[wishstar]

9. Bolton and his publisher might object to that idea plus the book isn't same as under oath testimony

since the book hasn't gone through proper vetting yet and Bolton limited his statements to testifying only as a fact witness upon a subpoena, that idea won't fly. Looking at a book behind closed doors without being author under oath still gives easy out for Repubs to say they didn't see enough evidence or doesn't rise to standard to convict.