U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[Eric Loh]

4 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

This has been a constant parade of bombshell witnesses -- Stormy, Cohen, Avenatti and now Comrade Lev.  All were busts, and now I'm reading that Lev has given some conflicting accounts over several interviews with different media organizations.  Lev's story seems to be fizzling before it's even a story.

You behind the curve and not keeping up. Latest is Bolton book revelation that the Ukraine aid was tied to Biden investigation. Not going away but just keep coming. 

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Nowhere in that article is there anything to support your claim:

 

" So you are ignoring the fact that Eric ciamarella working for the Obama administration NSC was part of the pressure campaign on Ukraine to dig up dirt on an opposing political campaign and was also a friend of the other nsc employee who went to work on Adam schiffs staff. It is blatantly clear what this is all about.  "

 

Prove me wrong; identify the words in the article that support this claim.

 

I admit that the article claimed that Vogel sought information about a story that was not published.  I overlooked it because it is so bland.  Nothing sinister about it, unless you really like to imagine conspiracies.

The irony of you telling me that I imagined a conspiracy while still believing that trump is compromised by Russia...

 

Vogel sat on the story. You can determine why for your own sake. The emails from Vogel to the state department Kate Schilling are there. Andrei Telizhenko backs up the story. Now we know that the NY times would never be so partisan to not publish the story. 

 

ERIC Ciamarella is suddenly not a good witness.... Do you think Sean misko who suddenly went to work for Adam schiff in August from the nsc that Eric ciamarella works for is just a coincidence? 

[Ricohoc]

54 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You behind the curve and not keeping up. Latest is Bolton book revelation that the Ukraine aid was tied to Biden investigation. Not going away but just keep coming. 

Well aware.

 

A leaked book transcript from a fired employee.  *yawn*

[Sujo]

30 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

Well aware.

 

A leaked book transcript from a fired employee.  *yawn*

Trump doesnt know him.

[Solinvictus]

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

One day the Democrat mob tells us it's not a trial -- it's not a courtroom -- the next day they want it to be just like a trial.

 

The fact of the matter is that it's not a trial.  The Senate reviews what the House produces.  Witnesses and more evidence is not and is never required.

You clearly are defending Trump's corruption. I would like to point out and especially to the conservative right establishment people on here; as Ralph Nader layed out and is widely known if you get news outside the mainstream tv box's channels, the following:

 

1.      Reduced programs of the Federal Government. Including, EPA, OCEA, Product Safety Commission. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. According to the makers of the constitution this is impeachable behavior

2.      Defiant refusal to execute the laws

3.      Enrichment of his family from foreign governments (Emoluments clause)

4.      Wrongful appropriations of the powers of congress. Example, building ‘the wall.’

5.      Armed forces active in nine countries without approval.

 

 

And you continue to support someone that compared to the history of presidents is frankly terrible but even worse ‘divisive.’

Regarding abuse of the public trust. He has lawsuits for sexual misconduct against him, policies against minorities and the poor. All the above mention includes continual lying. And many folks believe it and take it for face value, and continue to support this ‘superhero.’

 

Basically, the DEMs failed to charge President Trump with the proper violations...

No worries, next up, we are going to hear from witnesses! Yes! Bolton doesn't lie.

 

..but if your a Trump/Establishment supporter you like 'liars' right? Ha...

Edited January 27, 2020 by Solinvictus

[JHolmesJr]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

I see a part of Boltons book just got leaked. Throws trump under the bus. Makes it really hard not to call him now.

 

Hmmmm....is it at all possible that Maggie Haberman has been deliberately fed some fake news?

That's a classic Trump strategy from day one to smoke out leakers.

Someone at NSC is in big trouble.

[Chiphigh]

39 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

You clearly are defending Trump's corruption. I would like to point out and especially to the conservative right establishment people on here; as Ralph Nader layed out and is widely known if you get news outside the mainstream tv box's channels, the following:

 

1.      Reduced programs of the Federal Government. Including, EPA, OCEA, Product Safety Commission. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. According to the makers of the constitution this is impeachable behavior

2.      Defiant refusal to execute the laws

3.      Enrichment of his family from foreign governments (Emoluments clause)

4.      Wrongful appropriations of the powers of congress. Example, building ‘the wall.’

5.      Armed forces active in nine countries without approval.

 

 

And you continue to support someone that compared to the history of presidents is frankly terrible but even worse ‘divisive.’

Regarding abuse of the public trust. He has lawsuits for sexual misconduct against him, policies against minorities and the poor. All the above mention includes continual lying. And many folks believe it and take it for face value, and continue to support this ‘superhero.’

 

Basically, the DEMs failed to charge President Trump with the proper violations...

No worries, next up, we are going to hear from witnesses! Yes! Bolton doesn't lie.

 

..but if your a Trump/Establishment supporter you like 'liars' right? Ha...

Is every post going to be a virtue signaling paragraph or is it just a phase that you are going through? 

[Chiphigh]

41 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

You clearly are defending Trump's corruption. I would like to point out and especially to the conservative right establishment people on here; as Ralph Nader layed out and is widely known if you get news outside the mainstream tv box's channels, the following:

 

1.      Reduced programs of the Federal Government. Including, EPA, OCEA, Product Safety Commission. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. According to the makers of the constitution this is impeachable behavior

2.      Defiant refusal to execute the laws

3.      Enrichment of his family from foreign governments (Emoluments clause)

4.      Wrongful appropriations of the powers of congress. Example, building ‘the wall.’

5.      Armed forces active in nine countries without approval.

 

 

And you continue to support someone that compared to the history of presidents is frankly terrible but even worse ‘divisive.’

Regarding abuse of the public trust. He has lawsuits for sexual misconduct against him, policies against minorities and the poor. All the above mention includes continual lying. And many folks believe it and take it for face value, and continue to support this ‘superhero.’

 

Basically, the DEMs failed to charge President Trump with the proper violations...

No worries, next up, we are going to hear from witnesses! Yes! Bolton doesn't lie.

 

..but if your a Trump/Establishment supporter you like 'liars' right? Ha...

Policies against minorities and the poor? 

 

Details please. 

 

Thank you 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

The irony of you telling me that I imagined a conspiracy while still believing that trump is compromised by Russia...

 

Vogel sat on the story. You can determine why for your own sake. The emails from Vogel to the state department Kate Schilling are there. Andrei Telizhenko backs up the story. Now we know that the NY times would never be so partisan to not publish the story. 

 

ERIC Ciamarella is suddenly not a good witness.... Do you think Sean misko who suddenly went to work for Adam schiff in August from the nsc that Eric ciamarella works for is just a coincidence? 

Sujo is correct, you are definitely trolling.

 

Since you will not defend your claims, other than to say they are somewhere in your referenced article, I'll simply ask you to identify where Telizhenko is referenced, or where Ciamarello's is mentioned other than as the speculative identity of the whistleblower and performing a routine check-in of meeting attendees.

 

The article is a nothing burger.  It describes a routine meeting.  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma   It is not proof of a sinister conspiracy, regardless of how much you and Laura Ingraham want it to be.

 

[candide]

6 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Thanks for the explanation, I really needed it. 

 

So you are ignoring the fact that Eric ciamarella working for the Obama administration NSC was part of the pressure campaign on Ukraine to dig up dirt on an opposing political campaign and was also a friend of the other nsc employee who went to work on Adam schiffs staff. It is blatantly clear what this is all about. 

 

Ken Vogel of the NY times in May of 2019 was investigating this Ukraine /hunter Biden conflict of interest. The story was squashed. No surprise there. 

 

Get all the information before trying to lecture people in the future about being informed. But then again, being on the left does grant you the ability to automatically be correct in everything you post. 

As usual, conspiracy theories.

 

From your source: "The subjects discussed included efforts within the United State government to support prosecutions, in Ukraine and the United Kingdom, of Burisma Holdings ... and concerns that Hunter Biden's position with the company could complicate such efforts."

So it was about supporting prosecuting Burisma. It confirms what we already know: the Obama administration was pushing Ukraine to prosecute Burisma (we also statement by Kent and former ambassador in the timline). Kent had concern about Hunters position looking like a conflict of interest, we know it already.

 

The rest is just Ingraham's and your speculations. No fact. And of course, if the journalist did not publish any article on it, It can only be explained by a conspiracy.

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

Edited January 27, 2020 by candide

[candide]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Sujo is correct, you are definitely trolling.

 

Since you will not defend your claims, other than to say they are somewhere in your referenced article, I'll simply ask you to identify where Telizhenko is referenced, or where Ciamarello's is mentioned other than as the speculative identity of the whistleblower and performing a routine check-in of meeting attendees.

 

The article is a nothing burger.  It describes a routine meeting.  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma   It is not proof of a sinister conspiracy, regardless of how much you and Laura Ingraham want it to be.

 

The usual Trumpers' m.o. Cite a source that does not prove their point, hoping that no one will check.

[Ricohoc]

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Hmmmm....is it at all possible that Maggie Haberman has been deliberately fed some fake news?

That's a classic Trump strategy from day one to smoke out leakers.

Someone at NSC is in big trouble.

And it's not the book, it's a "draft" of the book.  My additional question would be, "Is it the real draft?"  ???? 

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Sujo is correct, you are definitely trolling.

 

Since you will not defend your claims, other than to say they are somewhere in your referenced article, I'll simply ask you to identify where Telizhenko is referenced, or where Ciamarello's is mentioned other than as the speculative identity of the whistleblower and performing a routine check-in of meeting attendees.

 

The article is a nothing burger.  It describes a routine meeting.  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/laura-ingraham-shows-emails-tying-alleged-ukraine-whistleblower-to-obama-white-house-meeting-on-burisma   It is not proof of a sinister conspiracy, regardless of how much you and Laura Ingraham want it to be.

 

I am not trolling. What is it with people trying to be hall monitors?

 

He is referenced in the article and in a previous politico article written by Vogel years ago. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

 

Face it, Ukrainian efforts to try and influence the election were real. The previous administration was in on it. 

 

It has been corroborated by a Ukrainian that was there, in a public post. 

 

Schiff hires misko a day after the phone call. 

 

Deny it, ignore it or whatever makes it easier for your narrative. 

 

The misdirection is over. 

[candide]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

I am not trolling. What is it with people trying to be hall monitors?

 

He is referenced in the article and in a previous politico article written by Vogel years ago. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

 

Face it, Ukrainian efforts to try and influence the election were real. The previous administration was in on it. 

 

It has been corroborated by a Ukrainian that was there, in a public post. 

 

Schiff hires misko a day after the phone call. 

 

Deny it, ignore it or whatever makes it easier for your narrative. 

 

The misdirection is over. 

So what? How does it confirms your conspiracy theory about the WB.

[Chiphigh]

22 minutes ago, candide said:

So what? How does it confirms your conspiracy theory about the WB.

So these are all just amazing coincidence from start to finish? 

 

The statistical odds would be astronomical. 

 

But then if it doesn't work with your narrative it must be just a coincidence 

[candide]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

So these are all just amazing coincidence from start to finish? 

 

The statistical odds would be astronomical. 

 

But then if it doesn't work with your narrative it must be just a coincidence 

Which narrative? The Ukraine embassy has regular contacts with the State Department, nothing suspect about it. Burisma' s owner has been a source of conflict because the US government supported the British about a seizure of assets, while the Ukrainian prosecutors were covering it up. Clearly documented with citations from ambassador and staff.

 

Chalupa has a private meeting with embassy officials. What's the link?

Your conspiracy theory is not supported by any fact.

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Which narrative? The Ukraine embassy has regular contacts with the State Department, nothing suspect about it. Burisma' s owner has been a source of conflict because the US government supported the British about a seizure of assets, while the Ukrainian prosecutors were covering it up. Clearly documented with citations from ambassador and staff.

 

Chalupa has a private meeting with embassy officials. What's the link?

Your conspiracy theory is not supported by any fact.

So when Andrey Telizhenko posts this happened, it is not a corroboration, just a theory still. Amazing how that works. 

[WalkingOrders]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

People with first hand knowledge were prevented by Trump from testifying.  The people who testified had contact with people working for and reporting directly to the President.  All Presidents have the right to Executive privilege; none have invoked it in such an all-encompassing manner as Trump, which makes him look incredibly guilty.  The only foreign policy that was undermined was Trump's policy of bullying another country into aiding his re-election campaign.

 

You are wrong about the time of Trump's "want nothing" statement:

 

" The date of that conversation between Sondland and Mr. Trump was September 9, the date that the House Intelligence Committee learned of the anonymous whistleblower's complaint at the center of the impeachment inquiry. "   https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-quotes-sondland-quoting-him-i-want-nothing-i-want-no-quid-pro-quo/

 

You don't pretend to know...but you include an "as I understand it".  Do you understand that without US support the Ukraine has no chance against Russia, and that Trump will withhold US support if President Zelensky's government does anything to peeve Trump?

This is pure nonsense. Treat the Ukrainian president as a smart individual capable of speaking his mind, and his foreign minister likwise. These are not lessor men then you. These are statesmen who have repeatedly said the call went well and they felt no pressure from the United States. They need not be treated like frightened Children afraid to speak their minds in fear of big daddy Trump. If they felt so pressured, and realizing that a bi-partisan consensus in the USA exists to support Ukraine, I would expect them to quite loudly be saying at this point that they were mistreated by the President. They have not. Let's end this fake virtue signalling nonsense on behalf of Ukraine that the poor Ukrainian President as an infantile man not capable of speaking his own mind. It's beyond riduculous.

Edited January 27, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Clarity

[candide]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

So when Andrey Telizhenko posts this happened, it is not a corroboration, just a theory still. Amazing how that works. 

What did he post? That the WB and Chalupa were together at the Ukrainian embassy to conspire against Trump. Unless I overlooked something. I did not see that in your sources. You showed one source stating there was a meeting between the DOJ and embassy officials, which is part of their job. Then you show another source citing a private meeting between Chalupa and Ukrainian embassy officials. The link between the two is your imagination.

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

This is pure nonsense. Treat the Ukrainian president as a smart individual capable of speaking his mind, and his foreign minister likwise. These are not lessor men then you. These are statesmen who have repeatedly said the call went well and they felt no pressure from the United States. They need not be treated like frightened Children afraid to speak their minds in fear of big daddy Trump. If they felt so pressured, and realizing that a bi-partisan consensus in the USA exists to support Ukraine, I would expect them to quite loudly be saying at this point that they were mistreated by the President. They have not. Let's end this fake virtue signalling nonsense on behalf of Ukraine that the poor Ukrainian President as an infantile man not capable of speaking his own mind. It's beyond riduculous.

You think leaders don't lie when their country is at war and its existence at risk?  That is very naive.

 

" In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. "  Winston Churchill

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

I am not trolling. What is it with people trying to be hall monitors?

 

He is referenced in the article and in a previous politico article written by Vogel years ago. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

 

Face it, Ukrainian efforts to try and influence the election were real. The previous administration was in on it. 

 

It has been corroborated by a Ukrainian that was there, in a public post. 

 

Schiff hires misko a day after the phone call. 

 

Deny it, ignore it or whatever makes it easier for your narrative. 

 

The misdirection is over. 

I have repeatedly challenged you to cite the part of your source that supports your outlandish claims, and you have repeatedly neglected to do so.  I'll now encourage others to read your lame source.  There is not 'there' there.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

So when Andrey Telizhenko posts this happened, it is not a corroboration, just a theory still. Amazing how that works. 

Andrey Telinzhenko posted what?  Don't give us what you imagined he stated, and don't give us what Fox pundits told you to believe.  Give us a credible source and let us read what happened.

[WalkingOrders]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Z did not said that. He never said "no pressure". It's Trump who put words in his mouth.

 

He's a smart guy. What he said was that he did not act according to a QPQ. So he does not confirm nor contradict anything. Look at the exact quote, he never said there was no pressure.

This is a lie, and you should be ashamed. He is on record numerous times, as is his is foreign minister speaking on his behalf in a lengthy televised interview, arguing they believed nothing was wrong with the call. Don't do things like that just to win a point man. You are making an empty claim on a point that is now well regarded about Zelensky. Stop it.

[WalkingOrders]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

You think leaders don't lie when their country is at war and its existence at risk?  That is very naive.

 

" In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. "  Winston Churchill

Sorry but the over the top drama here needs to stop. Its already proved that Ukraine had zero idea the funds were held for at least a month. There exists a bipartisan US consensus on Ukraine which they were aware of to this day. The funds, that they were unaware were held, had zero to do with any current military operations. Claiming that a foreign President must be a liar in order to support a US impeachment case points out in crystal clarity everything that is currently wrong with the Democrat party of the USA in ugly obviousness. The President of the Ukraine is not a liar, nor should he made into one to support the Democrats ridiculous impeachment case.

[heybruce]

57 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Sorry but the over the top drama here needs to stop. Its already proved that Ukraine had zero idea the funds were held for at least a month. There exists a bipartisan US consensus on Ukraine which they were aware of to this day. The funds, that they were unaware were held, had zero to do with any current military operations. Claiming that a foreign President must be a liar in order to support a US impeachment case points out in crystal clarity everything that is currently wrong with the Democrat party of the USA in ugly obviousness. The President of the Ukraine is not a liar, nor should he made into one to support the Democrats ridiculous impeachment case.

There is nothing over-the-top about the drama in Ukraine.  The country is at war with a much more powerful neighbor.  Part of the country has been annexed by Russia.  Part is in open rebellion, with rebels supported by Russia.  Putin clearly wants a pro-Russia government in Kiev that will turn the country into a puppet state.

 

Ukrainian officials learned the funds were being held up two weeks after the Trump-Zelensky phone call:

 

"The report in the Times said the documents and interviews indicated that Ukrainian officials were alerted to the existence of the aid freeze by the end of the first week of August."

"Trump spoke on July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about a potential investigation of Biden as well as the aid package."   https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/467125-documents-show-ukraine-knew-by-august-that-aid-was-being-withheld

 

Before then they knew they didn't have the funds and didn't have the meeting with Trump that Zelensky needed for credibility before negotiating with Russia. 

 

Zelensky definitely knew that Trump is a vindictive man-child who lashes out at anyone who annoys him when the question of whether he felt pressure was asked.  Zelensky also knew that Trump has a lot of influence over foreign policy even if there is bi-partisan support for Ukraine in the US Congress.  Zelensky doesn't know if the bi-partisan support he has in Congress would last if he confirmed the quid-pro-quo.  Finally, Zelensky knows that Trump is unlikely to be removed from office.  It would have been idiotic for him to antagonize the man-child in Chief.

Answer this question:  What could Zelensky possibly have gained by answering honestly and stating that of course he knew Trump was pressuring him?

[WalkingOrders]

31 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There is nothing over-the-top about the drama in Ukraine.  The country is at war with a much more powerful neighbor.  Part of the country has been annexed by Russia.  Part is in open rebellion, with rebels supported by Russia.  Putin clearly wants a pro-Russia government in Kiev that will turn the country into a puppet state.

 

Ukrainian officials learned the funds were being held up two weeks after the Trump-Zelensky phone call:

 

"The report in the Times said the documents and interviews indicated that Ukrainian officials were alerted to the existence of the aid freeze by the end of the first week of August."

"Trump spoke on July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about a potential investigation of Biden as well as the aid package."   https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/467125-documents-show-ukraine-knew-by-august-that-aid-was-being-withheld

 

Before then they knew they didn't have the funds and didn't have the meeting with Trump that Zelensky needed for credibility before negotiating with Russia. 

 

Zelensky definitely knew that Trump is a vindictive man-child who lashes out at anyone who annoys him when the question of whether he felt pressure was asked.  Zelensky also knew that Trump has a lot of influence over foreign policy even if there is bi-partisan support for Ukraine in the US Congress.  Zelensky doesn't know if the bi-partisan support he has in Congress would last if he confirmed the quid-pro-quo.  Finally, Zelensky knows that Trump is unlikely to be removed from office.  It would have been idiotic for him to antagonize the man-child in Chief.

Answer this question:  What could Zelensky possibly have gained by answering honestly and stating that of course he knew Trump was pressuring him?

One more time, there is a bi-partisan consensus in the USA in support of Ukraine. If even today  Zelensky were to say he had an issue he could say so, but the fact of the matter is he has said the opposite, and this is a ludicrous conversation we are having.

 

It does not cut muster, obviously, as a legal argument, nor does is it held up by the facts of the matter. It is a made up fiction, a conjecture aimed to support what is not supported.

Futher, it dishonors Zelensky, as some kind of weak coward unable of having an honest conversation with the President of the United States  or his own people.

 

Trump had this conversation in plain sight of staff, and if not for Democrat attempt to turn the call into something it isnt, none of this would ever have been known. And I don't understand frankly, why Democrats are under the assumption that it is THEY and not Zelensky himself, who speaks for President Zelensky, even to the point that they claim to know his thoughts and motivations better then he does.

 

As for your hypothetical question. You claim in your question that in the phonecall Zelensky was dishonest, then you pose your hypothetical as being truth, meaning the real truth must be that President Zelensky was in fact lying on the call (as he never indicated any problem on the call), and he has been lying after the call in statements saying nothing was wrong with the call. 

 

But this is NOT in fact the truth. The truth is as has been exhibited by Zelensky during and after the call. There was nothing wrong with the call.

 

The reason Democrats cannot accept the truth, is that the truth must be turned into a lie. Without this lie, this fabrication that turns reality on its head, the Democrat case falls to pieces.

 

[TopDeadSenter]

59 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No no no...It's not a quid-pro-quo.  It's just a perfect phone call in which one person is talking about military aid and the other person is talking about investigations into silly conspiracy theories.

 

Lovely phone call.  Beautiful plumage.

Some people just have no concept of how foreign relations work. Nor why huge amounts of money are paid to dodgy dumps like Pakistan and Ukraine across the globe. I'll give you a hint. It ain't charity. 

[Ricohoc]

3 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

. . .

He is on record numerous times, as is his is foreign minister speaking on his behalf in a lengthy televised interview, arguing they believed nothing was wrong with the call.

. . . 

And this is exactly why Bolton's book doesn't matter and why conversations with advisers are protected by executive privilege.

 

Whatever Trump may have said about withholding aid to Ukraine in any conversations with Bolton, preconditions were NEVER communicated to the Ukraine. Leaders in the Ukraine have said as much and didn't even know that a decision had been made by Trump to delay the aid.

 

It is common to discuss all issues before making decisions, which is why executive privilege protects these conversations.

 

 

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, Ricohoc said:

It is common to discuss all issues before making decisions, which is why executive privilege protects these conversations.

 

 

Not while engaged in unlawful activity

[Credo]

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

And this is exactly why Bolton's book doesn't matter and why conversations with advisers are protected by executive privilege.

 

Whatever Trump may have said about withholding aid to Ukraine in any conversations with Bolton, preconditions were NEVER communicated to the Ukraine. Leaders in the Ukraine have said as much and didn't even know that a decision had been made by Trump to delay the aid.

 

It is common to discuss all issues before making decisions, which is why executive privilege protects these conversations.

 

 

The conversations are not covered once the President starts talking (or in this case tweeting) about them.   Or are you suggesting, he can say what he wants, but those in attendance cannot?