Davin News Server

On 2025-08-31 09:59, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 12:46:46 -0400, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-08-28 07:14, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:06:25 -0400, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-08-27 07:27, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:18:22 -0400, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-08-26 07:32, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 05:28:25 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-08-25 04:30, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:18:03 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-08-24 07:24, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:33:45 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-08-23 11:26, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> " At the center of the Justice Department’s reopened probe of John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bolton is whether President Donald Trump’s former national security
>>>>>>>>>>>>> adviser, and more recently staunch critic, broke the law when he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared what Trump administration officials believe was classified
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information with people not authorized to have it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A 2020 criminal investigation into Bolton originated from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allegations that Bolton had shared portions of his book draft with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people not authorized to handle sensitive information before he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obtained final approval from the government that is required ahead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of publishing any book, according to a person briefed on the probe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The FBI obtained emails that appeared to show Bolton was working on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> his book manuscript while still at the White House, and that he was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sharing early portions with his representatives who were helping to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get it published, according to the person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The early manuscript portions included material that was restricted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by federal law governing classified documents, the person said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CNN has reached out to Bolton and his attorney for comment on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FBI emails. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/23/politics/john-bolton-2020-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> investigation
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And 4 year long investigation found...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...what?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Biden administration shut it down as it wasn't in their interest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Duh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The deep state!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CNN is the deepstate?  That fact is contained later in the article I
>>>>>>>>> cited
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dang dude...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CNN reporting on it being shut down doesn't make them the ones who shut
>>>>>>>> it, does it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like you've lost your marbles for sure.  No one said anything
>>>>>>> about the deep state but you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you're the one who said the "Biden administration shut it down" as
>>>>>> if that wasn't because there was nothing to be found.
>>>>>
>>>>> In your dreams.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "After President Joe Biden took office in 2021, the Bolton probe was
>>>>> shut down that June “for political reasons,” a senior US official told
>>>>> The Post Friday."
>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-john-bolton-s-controversial-2020-memoir-sparked-first-federal-probe-of-ex-trump-national-security-adviser/ar-AA1L2xOW
>>>>
>>>> An anonymous "senior US official" told the NY Post?
>>>>
>>>> Could you choose a more biased source?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you now denying that the probe was not dropped by the Biden
>>> administration???
> 
> Silence (of course).

Because it's moot.

Do you suppose they could have dropped the investigation because there 
was nothing there to find?

After all, it's not like Bolton was a friend to Biden's administration, 
now was it?

> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And reporting this in 2025 and you don't think that that's at the behest
>>>> of Trump?
>>>
>>> Laughter!
>>>
>>>    Because the media is so friendly to Trump...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Read what's in the very next paragraph, doofus:
>>>>
>>>> 'A Justice Department effort to recoup profits from the book was also
>>>> set aside after attorneys for Knight submitted a letter to the federal
>>>> judge overseeing that case, claiming she had been pressured by the Trump
>>>> White House to falsely declare “The Room Where It Happened” contained
>>>> classified information.'
>>>
>>> So?
> 
> Silence (of course).

So you don't think there's a problem with someone being pressured by the 
Trump's administration to declare something she knows to be false, and 
that the administration fired her for that?

Knight has been in your federal government since 2011, and was promoted 
to the position first the position of Director and then Senior Director 
of the National Security Council...

...BY DONALD TRUMP.

And then she won't say what he wants her to say and she's suddenly fired.

> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's someone speaking without the cloak of anonymity.
>>>>
>>>> More:
>>>>
>>>> 'In an 18-page letter submitted in the case on Tuesday, Knight claimed
>>>> that after she and her team went through several rounds of reviewing the
>>>> manuscript with the help of Bolton's attorneys, they were able to remove
>>>> all of the classified information. But soon thereafter political
>>>> appointees in the executive branch took "extraordinary actions" to
>>>> pressure her into reversing that assessment.
>>>
>>> So classified information was made available to the publishers???
>>>
>>> That itself is a crime.
>>>
>>> Game over.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but where does it say that any classified information got as
>> far as the publishers.
> 
> Isn't that what the investigation is about???

Is it? Because if there actually WAS classified information IN THE BOOK, 
this would already be a slam-dunk.

So why isn't Bolton already arrested?

> 
>>
>> What it DOES say is that Knight and her team reviewed the manuscript
>> BEFORE it was sent to the publishers.
> 
> The investigation will tell us.

No, it won't. An investigation into Bolton will not tell you when Knight 
and her team reviewed the manuscript...

...but this letter will:

'The review started with Ambassador Bolton's submission of the 
manuscript on December 30, 2019. Upon the first reading, it was apparent 
to Ms. Knight that the manuscript contained voluminous amounts of 
classified information and that it would take a significant effort to 
put it into publishable shape. The ensuing review ultimately became the 
most intensive pre-publication review process in recent memory at the NSC.'

<https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7216196/Letter-Re-US-v-John-Bolton.pdf>

Go ahead, read it, and tell me what part of this wasn't bullshit by the 
Trump team. Especially this:

'After her promotion to Senior Director, Ms. Knight was given assurances 
from all of her relevant NSC supervisors that she would have the option 
to transition into that direct-hire position at the end of her two-year 
detail in August 2020. Both the NSC Executive Secretary and the Senior 
Director for Resource Management told her that they supported her 
transition to the direct-hire position at the conclusion of her detail. 
The NSC Legal Advisor gave her the same assurance, and promised to 
advocate for this transition with the NSC Chief of Staff, who had 
separately expressed strong support for her direct-hire and even assured 
her as recently as May 22 that he was working to “muscle some money 
around” to ensure her
transition to the NSC permanent staff.

Following her refusal on June 16 to sign a declaration concerning the 
Bolton litigation, Ms. Knight’s interaction with her leadership and NSC 
Legal all but ceased until June 22, when she received an automated email 
advising her that her detail would end in 60 days. When she then asked 
the NSC Executive Secretary about the prospect of a direct hire he 
consulted with the NSC Chief of Staff and the NSC Legal Advisor, who 
informed him that that was no longer a possibility, and that “there isno 
path forward for [Ms. Knight] at the NSC.” The Executive Secretary 
expressed his sympathy and also his surprise at the decision in light of 
his strong impression of Ms. Knight as a “professional [who] did 
everything by the book.” However, he said, the decision was “not [his] 
to make,” and had already been made by others. On August 20, Ms. 
Knight’s detail expired and she returned to NARA.'