segunda-feira, 8 de junho de 2020

Bolton plans to publish book in June even if White House doesn't give approval / New York Times: Bolton wrote he was concerned Trump was granting favors to autocratic leaders





Bolton plans to publish book in June even if White House doesn't give approval
Kylie Atwood

By Kylie Atwood and Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Updated 0158 GMT (0958 HKT) June 8, 2020

(CNN)Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton is planning to publish his book detailing his time in the West Wing later this month, even if the White House does not give publication approval, a source familiar with the negotiations told CNN.

"The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir" is scheduled to be released on June 23, and, as of now, the White House has not formally signed off on it, the source said. Bolton has already scheduled network interviews to promote the book, a separate source told CNN. A spokesperson for Bolton declined to comment.
The Washington Post was the first to report the details of Bolton's plan. CNN has contacted the book's publisher, Simon & Schuster, for comment.
News of Bolton's plans to move forward follow numerous delays as his lawyers have been embroiled in a battle with the White House over the contents. The Trump administration has raised concerns about the publication of classified information that it says is protected by executive privilege.
Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that Bolton, in his unpublished manuscript, alleged that President Donald Trump directed him to help with his pressure campaign to get damaging information on Democrats from Ukraine.
According to the Times, he also alleged that Trump didn't want to lift a hold on military aid to Ukraine until officials there complied with the request. Bolton's lawyers have not denied the substance of the New York Times reports but have condemned the leaks behind it.
The President, vice president and some agency heads designated by the President, have broad authority over classifying or declassifying information.
CNN previously reported that Bolton's team has prepared for the possibility that the administration may try to retroactively classify some of the material in his book -- a measure that is uncommon, but not unheard of, due to loopholes in executive order 13526.
"The President is really empowered by the words in this executive authority," said J. William Leonard, the former director of the information security office which overseas executive branch implementation of the executive order -- and former deputy secretary of defense.
"It's an authority that can be abused and it can weaken the classification system," Leonard said. "They abuse it to keep the information out of the hands of adversaries that could potentially use the information to harm the country."
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN's Kaitlan Collins, Brian Stelter, Vivian Salama contributed to this report.

New York Times: Bolton wrote he was concerned Trump was granting favors to autocratic leaders

By Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Updated 1020 GMT (1820 HKT) January 28, 2020

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton claims to have privately told Attorney General William Barr last year that he was concerned the President was granting favors to the autocratic leaders of China and Turkey, The New York Times reported Monday, citing multiple people's descriptions of an unpublished draft manuscript by Bolton.

Barr told Bolton in response that he worried Trump had created the appearance of undue influence over two Justice Department investigations of companies in China and Turkey, which are traditionally independent inquiries, the draft manuscript says, according to the Times.
To make his point, Barr made specific reference to Trump's conversations with President Xi Jinping of China about Chinese telecommunications company ZTE, which agreed to pay fines in 2017 for violating US sanctions on doing business with Iran, North Korea and other countries, Bolton wrote, according to the Times. In 2018, the Trump administration reached a deal with ZTE to lift the ban in exchange for a series of other punishments, including the company overhauling its top management, bringing in an American monitoring team and paying a $1 billion fine.
Bolton also claims, the Times reported, that Barr cited Trump's comments to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2018 about an investigation into the state-owned Turkish bank Halkbank -- though ultimately the Justice Department charged the bank with "fraud, money laundering, and sanctions offenses related to the bank's participation in a multibillion-dollar scheme to evade US sanctions on Iran."
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said Monday night it had not reviewed the manuscript, but the Times' "account of this conversation grossly mischaracterizes what Attorney General Barr and Mr. Bolton discussed. There was no discussion of 'personal favors' or 'undue influence' on investigations, nor did Attorney General Barr state that the President's conversations with foreign leaders was improper."
"If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own current views -- views with which Attorney General Barr does not agree," Kerri Kupec, the spokeswoman, said.
The newly purported revelations in Bolton's unpublished draft manuscript come the day after a New York Times report citing the same manuscript detailed how, according to Bolton, Trump said he wanted to continue holding military aid to Ukraine until the country helped with investigations into Democrats -- including former Vice President Joe Biden.
A source with direct knowledge of the manuscript told CNN that The New York Times' telling of Bolton's account of the discussion with Trump about the hold on the Ukraine aid is accurate.
Trump's purported statement, as described by Bolton, would directly tie the freeze on US military aid to the President's requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his political rivals -- undermining a key pillar of Trump's impeachment defense that the two circumstances are unrelated.

Sem comentários: