So which is it? Like a lot of other people, I'm trying to extract the real meaning of the NYT article, "Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says/Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial."
We're haggling and agonizing about whether Bolton can testify at the impeachment trial, as if he's a crucial repository of information that can only be delivered through live testimony, but that book exists. It's just being withheld — withheld and teased, through people who are very antagonistic to Trump.
It reminds me of the way Trump antagonists began this impeachment process with inflammatory reports of what Trump said in the Ukraine phone call. But there was a transcript of that phone call, and Trump changed the conversation about it by releasing the transcript.
Release the damned book!
Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.... The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.So, the book is already circulating to outsiders as part of the review process, and the White House is being given an opening to assert executive privilege and suppress all or part of the book. Everything will still come out, one way or another. It's already dribbling out, in a distorted form.
The White House did not provide responses to questions about Mr. Bolton’s assertions, and representatives for Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment on Sunday afternoon.Trump had the power to release the transcript of the Ukraine phone call, but it's not so easy to release somebody else's book. There's a big commercial interest here, and it seems that Bolton's cashing in on his intimacy with the President is more important that serving the people as we are subjected to this impeachment ordeal. The manuscript is out there, and many people are reading it, but it's the pre-publication review process, and — big surprise — it's leaking. Well, that's to be expected, and now we're reading the leaks as the NYT chooses to present them, presumably in the hope of opening up the Senate trial. And from Bolton's camp, what we hear is crying over corruption of the process — not the Senate trial process, the pre-publication review process.
Mr. Bolton’s lawyer blamed the White House for the disclosure of the book’s contents. “It is clear, regrettably, from the New York Times article published today that the pre-publication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript,” the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, said Sunday night.
If the pre-publication review process is more important than giving us what's in the book while the Senate trial is going on, then I'm guessing what's in the book is nothing we haven't already heard about Trump and Ukraine. And if the White House is the source of the leak — which is the story from the Bolton camp — that's all the more reason to think the book is nothing special.
According to the NYT article, Trump has had the book since December 30. The book is no surprise to Trump.
Key to Mr. Bolton’s account about Ukraine is an exchange during a meeting in August with the president after Mr. Trump returned from vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.... Mr. Trump... air[ed] his longstanding grievances about Ukraine, which mixed legitimate efforts by some Ukrainians to back his Democratic 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, with unsupported accusations and outright conspiracy theories about the country, a key American ally.... [T]he president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.In other words, it wasn't all about Joe Biden. However wrong or disorderly Trump's various thoughts might have been, they were not limited to the one thought that is the thought that the House managers say was his only thought. That's their theory of abuse of power, that he wanted only to get material to use against his political rival.
The president often hits at multiple opponents in his harangues, and he frequently lumps together the law enforcement officials who conducted the Russia inquiry with Democrats and other perceived enemies, as he appeared to do in speaking to Mr. Bolton....
Notice how cagily the first paragraph of the NYT article is written:
President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.Did Trump even mention Joe Biden in that conversation?
AND: Why doesn't John Bolton just do an interview? I don't accept the answer: He's following his predetermined plan for marketing his book. He says he'd testify at the trial, but why keep it a secret and let Senators decide whether his input is included or not?
ALSO: Trump has some new tweets (1, 2, 3):
I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems. Additionally, I met with President Zelensky at the United Nations (Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations - and far ahead of schedule. I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration.And he retweets this from Sean Davis (1, 2):
Just like James Comey, John Bolton is trying to get rich off of a lie- and leak-fueled campaign to overturn the 2016 election results. I suspect it will work out as well as all of Bolton’s other wars.Trump also retweets this from Mollie Hemingway:
John Bolton is running the exact same revenge playbook against Trump that James Comey used. He’s even using the same agent and leaking to the same reporters. All because he’s mad Trump fired him for leaking and trying to start new wars. It’s so boring and predictable.
This is obviously book promo coordinated with compliant media, yes. But an additional word of skepticism: these *particular* folks have a pattern of overpromising and underachieving with their "bombshell" anti-Trump book roll outs.
Posts
289 comments:
1 – 200 of 289 Newer› Newest»Which way do the financial interests cut?
I'd think the interest in buying and reading Bolton's book is quite high right now. If the Senate dismisses or acquits in the next two weeks, will anyone be interested in Bolton's book in six weeks, when it's scheduled to be released? Six weeks is several lifetimes in the churn of the anti-Trump narrative.
Why were Bolton's "close associates" getting drafts before the pre-publication review was done? Are we supposed to believe they hold all the clearances Bolton had, and have an official need to know what is in the book?
The reason for the pre-publication review process is to ensure that classified information is not released without authorization. If Bolton or his agents gave drafts to third parties before pre-publication review was complete, they were the ones corrupting the process.
NYT been right so far... More fruit from the poison tree. YUM YUM
Maybe the impeachment trial was part of the marketing strategy for Bolton’s book.
But seriously, Prof. A: excellent questions, that help keep us focused on the difference between what is really happening, and what the NYT says is happening.
It doesn't matter what's in the book. Investigate what the Dems were up to in the biggest crime in American history, which continues in the senate today.
If the book helped the dems with its women, Pelosi would have delayed longer.
He doesn’t want the cross-x material out there, in the event he does have to testify. Even if there’s nothing in particular for him to be concerned about, all that material would give the lawyers control.
Basically the attack on Trump is that he doesn't mean well. That's what resonates with women.
When are we going to get around to prosecuting FBI agents and Obama admin people for lying to the FISA courts and spying on the Trump campaign?
If you recall, that was the starting point of these "unsupported accusations and outright conspiracy theories" Trump continues to state, all of which have turned out to be true.
I like this nuanced distinction by NYTimes?! ...
"The president often ... frequently lumps together the law enforcement officials who conducted the Russia inquiry with Democrats"
"...replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine...."
The left got three years to investigate Russia.
They come up with nothing.
Trump in turn looks at the Russia investigation -- an attempted coup -- in relation to shady operations with the Ukraine.
Which is reason for the left to start the coup anew.
Calvinball.
I am Laslo.
John Bolton will save us from the impeachment farce!
Yet another Squirrel! distraction.
Poor Lev Parnas. He was last week’s most important person in the history of the world, and now he’s lost all of his juice to a manuscript...
White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books....
The other Vindman brother is in charge of reviewing books for publication at the NSC. It’s possible that Bolton sent his book to them in full knowledge that it would be illegally leaked by the coup plotters there, it’s possible he’s genuinely outraged. I don’t know. I would be happy to hear all of the witnesses, but I think that the case is so weak it is not worth it to tie up the Senate for as long as that would take. But that’s probably the goal, to keep impeachment going and make it impossible to replace Ginsberg.
That was narcisco’s theory, BTW, that Bolton knew that Vindman B would leak his book.
Vindman A, the Lt Col is very tight with his brother, Vindman B, who has made a shit ton of money out of Ukraine, but somehow still has a sensitive job in our government.
“But seriously, Prof. A: excellent questions, that help keep us focused on the difference between what is really happening, and what the NYT says is happening.”
The Senate is rushing to judgement. How do the Democrats slow down the process? Oh! Someone just found some last minute information that has to be properly examined. And while they are doing that, here’s some more. Last time around, it was SHF’s bogus claim against Kavenaugh that Feinstein sat on throughout the time that the original hearings were going on. This time, it is what the NYT claims is in the Bolton book. And remind me why anyone believes that the NYT should be believed here.
Was Bolton’s book written under oath?
Shouting Thomas,
"When are we going to get around to prosecuting FBI agents and Obama admin people for lying to the FISA courts and spying on the Trump campaign?"
One of the main reasons for the collusion/Ukraine/impeachment investigations, perhaps the main reason, is that the time/energy involved will significantly limit the government's ability to investigate all the shenanigans of the Obama administration and the Democrats during those years.
First thought that came to mind: Team Trump is baiting desperate Dems into trading Hunter and Joe Biden testimony for Bolton's.
"they were not limited to the one thought that is the thought that the House managers say was his only thought. That's their theory of abuse of power, that he wanted only to get material to use against his political rival.”
Right. “completely absent” was the words they used. I love the part about “legitimately helping Hillary Clinton” by, you know, digging through intelligence files and publishing their findings to maximize the damage to the Trump campaign. If that’s legitimate, what was Mueller about?
BTW, Ciaramella met with the Ukrainians who provided the Democrats with the “Black Ledger” in the White House.
Compliant media you say?
Hillary's team playing Journalist!
I read through an article on this last night. It's obvious that the unnamed sources are overselling to sell books.
If Bolton really did have the goods, I suppose the House should have taken the time to subpeona Bolton, right?
It's almost embarrassing how every NeverTrumper reacts the same way with these stories. Haven't learned to be skeptical.
This just opens the door for Ciaramella to testify. Are the allegations that Democrats were soliciting election interference really baseless? After Ciaramella met with the Ukrainians who did it? Says who? Who looked into them? Anybody? Mueller? ... Mueller?
“The other Vindman brother is in charge of reviewing books for publication at the NSC. It’s possible that Bolton sent his book to them in full knowledge that it would be illegally leaked by the coup plotters there, it’s possible he’s genuinely outraged. I don’t know. I would be happy to hear all of the witnesses, but I think that the case is so weak it is not worth it to tie up the Senate for as long as that would take. But that’s probably the goal, to keep impeachment going and make it impossible to replace Ginsberg.”
Was he outraged enough that he would Do something to guarantee that he would never be allowed in the White House of any Republican (and the Democrats all hate him already)? Destroying the re-election chances of a sitting Republican scores a zero in the loyalty and trustfulness categories. It would be decades before Bolton could regain enough trust to be trusted within several miles of the White House by a Republican President. Or probably even a Republican Senator.
As for the Ginsberg angle, does anyone believe that McConnell wouldn’t just put the impeachment trial on ice until after the confirmation hearings for her replacement? In 2016, the Republicans in the Senate had no problem putting AG Barr’s confirmation on hold long enough to get Kavenaugh confirmed, even if it meant that Barr couldn’t be confirmed, and thence shut down the Mueller investigation, until after the election. This time it would take four defections, not four. And letting the Democrats fuck things up with their cheating isn’t something that the Republican rank and file will tolerate any more.
A second native Ukrainian Vindman being involved would really piss off the Republican base. We don’t need to wait for the other LT Col Vindman to join the team to know that we are beyond coincidence and into enemy action, because we have heard what the first LT Col Vindman had to say, which was that it was the job of the permanent bureaucracy, the Deep State, to make foreign policy, and not the President. And then there is apparently yet a fourth Vindman brother up to his ears in the Ukrainian corruption. It stinks to high heaven, esp since they appear to be operating out of Trump’s White House.
Althouse said ...
It reminds me of the way Trump antagonists began this impeachment process with inflammatory reports of what Trump said in the Ukraine phone call. But there was a transcript of that phone call, and Trump changed the conversation about it by releasing the transcript.
Trump is currently being impeached. Changed it for the better or the worse is the minds of the majority?
NYT articles says that the book says Trump “preferred” to hold the aid to Ukraine.
Why is that a BFD?
We already KNOW he PREFERRED to hold the aid.
Also, notice that NYT left out dates in their article and from reading folks on twitter that follow these things closely that the dates of the comments are important. As I recall they were made when Trump came home from a trip to Bedminster.
Read Shem Horne twitter feed.
He has details NYT “conveniently” leaves out.
And to steal a page out of Rhardin's book,all of this claptrap isn't even registering with the soap opera women: Kobe's death has taken their attention.
[T]he president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.
So? It sounds like Trump was doing his job and he was talked out of it by the swamp to protect their graft.
I’d like to think that, at some point, the lefties and the LLR never-Trumpers (but I repeat myself) will so over-play their hands that vast swaths of voters will come to finally see this game with perfect clarity. But the game never stops for a single second. It only intensifies. It is a tsunami of swindle.
Our hostess is something of a weathervane, but most of the voters who reflexively put the Dems in power do not have any significant portion of her brains. They just swallow all this shit whole. It’s despair making.
- Krumhorn
It will now be difficult to not call at least Bolton, Pompeo, Esper and Guiliani as witnesses without it appearing to be a cover up. Not impossible, but very very difficult. Tough decisions ahead for the senate republicans.
The New York Times is complicit in this matter. Democrats sat on this until they felt that the time was right when the Times did its dirty work.
And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
I am all for calling all of them, as long as they get Biden pere and fils and Ciaramella. It can’t just be the witnesses Democrats want. I think that Schiff blew any possibility of limiting it to Democrat witnesses by insulting the Republicans he needed in the Senate.
Why are the Democrats so unwilling to let Biden testify? What are they covering up?
Why won’t Schiff release the testimony of Atkinson? What is he covering up?
What if Trump is the leak source? Your scenario Michael the Magnificent would then be quite plausible.
Bolton is first among Neocon war mongers. He’s mad at Trump for not starting a hot war with Iran over the Drone shootdown. These are the Democrat’s allies, Neocons.
Trump tweets that “he never told Bolton that Ukraine aid was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens.” That’s not saying the aid wasn’t being tied, just that he didn’t tell Bolton.
For the Pence coup to work, Republican Senators have to be presented with new information that allows some number of them to plausibly change position. Bolton seems to be offering to provide that. He’s said he will testify if they call him. So I imagine he will wait for the subpoena. It’s what he will do if there is a final vote to not call witnesses that will be interesting. Will he do an interview then, presumably later this week?
His testimony could go either way. He could testify that from his perspective it was just Sondland and Mulvaney.
The senate democrats do not have to negotiate on witnesses now. It is a win-win for them. If the senate republicans don't call witnesses it looks like a cover up to most voters. If they do call witnesses then Trump becomes exposed to serious risk. While I am sure Trump's base will stand by him, many republican senators need more than Trump's base to win reelection. While we are not quite there yet, it is becoming an us or him calculation for some senators.
Trump is currently being impeached. Changed it for the better or the worse [in] the minds of the majority?
Do you seriously believe that this nasty business is playing well outside of the MSNBC/CNN crowd? When the House couldn’t cough up a single R vote for impeachment, even from among the never-Trumpers, this entire affair has been branded for the partisan election season Hail Mary that it is.
If there is any justice,.....make that common sense..... Trump will be re-elected with plenty to spare and bring the House along with him.
- Krumhorn
We need you, the Republicans in the Senate, to call the witnesses we, the Democrats in the House, refused to call.
Got it. Sounds reasonable to me, Man.
Its a reasonable conjecture.
Pelosi's delay in forwarding the articles now appears to have been strategic. They knew the WH would get the book and they could reasonably surmise that it would then be leaked.
"they could reasonably surmise that it would then be leaked.”
You mean since Vindman’s twin brother was in charge of reviewing it? Yeah, it was a good bet it would be leaked. But I think it helps Trump because it makes it clear that what was happening was investigation of Democrat solicitation of election interference from Ukraine.
How are Democrats going to keep Rs from calling Biden and Ciaramella? Two witnesses that they have drawn a line in the sand on. They could have had Bolton already but the cover up that is this impeachment, won’t work if Biden and Ciaramella get called and the Atkinson testimony that Schiff is hiding becomes public.
The senate democrats do not have to negotiate on witnesses now. It is a win-win for them. If the senate republicans don't call witnesses it looks like a cover up to most voters
A cover up of what? Except for the haters who would vote against him just for being alive, nobody is buying that there is a crime or misdemeanor here even if everything that has been said is solid gold truth. The haters will hate. Nobody else has a sing fuck to give about the Ukraine, and most couldn’t find it on a map.
- Krumhorn
Let me repeat that: Democrats could have had Bolton already.
If there's anything of any importance in the book and no one knows until it's released, Bolton will be hated by the Left forever. Unless he is positive he'll be called to testify, I think this is all book PR and it will turn out like all the other bombshells - less impact than Swalwell's fart.
The leak comes from the Trump-haters on the staff of the National Security Council in the White House who were assigned to approve the book's publication.
"However wrong or disorderly Trump's various thoughts might have been"
Clever line by an anti-trump blogger without losing her readers.
What the Dems have to worry about is paybacks which we all know to be a mf’er.
- Krumhorn
Trump appointed Bolton to be his National Security Advisor because Bolton appeared on Fox News a lot.
I think the Republicans will prefer the risk of appearing to be engaging in a cover up rather than the risk of witnesses, but they obviously have to be concerned about what comes next, particularly with respect to Giuliani.
From the NYT:
Mr. Bolton also described other key moments in the pressure campaign, including Mr. Pompeo’s private acknowledgment to him last spring that Mr. Giuliani’s claims about Ms. Yovanovitch had no basis and that Mr. Giuliani may have wanted her removed because she might have been targeting his clients who had dealings in Ukraine as she sought to fight corruption.
Giuliani is in some serious trouble if this is an accurate read of Pompeo's views.
The Democrats are Charlie Brown.
And Lucy is once again holding the football.
Beasts of England said...
Was Bolton’s book written under oath?
This is the right question.
We need Bolton’s testimony under oath. Bolton says openly that he will appear under oath when he gets a Senate subpoena. The news of the book ramps up pressure on all Senators to vote to issue that subpoena.
Why is this a difficult decision? Something like 60-75% of Americans believe that this trial should have witnesses. The White House has blocked the production of thousands of documents. Bolton, Mulvaney, Duffey, Pompeo; they all likely have important information. Beyond any doubt, Trump has important information. They should all testify. Who would not want that? What good reason would there be to block all of that?
Based on the last four dozen or so bombshells from the NYT that were going to sink Trump, I'm placing this in my nothingburger file.
Trump has already tweeted that he had no such conversation with Bolton, and frankly, his track record on things like this has been way better than the NYT.
Remember when Stormy Daniels was going to takes Trump down?
And the FBI took all his lawyer’s files?
And his lawyer was going to cut a deal and testify before Congress?
Apparently there is no limit to how many times some people can be fooled.
That’s easy, Chuck. The House should have gone to court to produce the witnesses and documents they needed. It’s not the job of the Senate to conduct an investigation; they only hear the case as delivered.
Chuck
To state the obvious, we already had witnesses. All of the witnesses that the Democrats in Congress chose to call.
Charlie Brown’s nickname is “Chuck”.
Think about it.
Giuliani is in some serious trouble if this is an accurate read of Pompeo's views.
Hearsay upon hearsay. Compounded stupidity to call that ‘reasonable’. Haters will hate.
- Krumhorn
he [President Trump] frequently lumps together the law enforcement officials who conducted the Russia inquiry with Democrats
For example, Trump frequently lumps together
1) law enforcement officials like Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, etc.
2) Democrats like Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, etc.
A house investigation of Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine is not going to be subject to claims of executive privilege. Giuliani was presumably acting as a private citizen.
’Giuliani was presumably acting as a private citizen.’
You and Amb. Sondland should start a band called The Presumptions.
Who would not want that? What good reason would there be to block all of that?
There’s no there there. Even if they all got up and spoke God’s branded truth, nobody except the haters gives a shit. We impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. The lefties and the LLR never-Trumpers impeach because OrangeManBad. You haters will hate.
- Krumhorn
Why were Bolton's "close associates" getting drafts before the pre-publication review was done?
Bolton was the head of the National Security Council.
Staff members of the National Security Council were assigned to approve the publication of the book.
Bolton was once a proud Numenorean but he has transformed into being the Mouth of Sauron.
Faithless, accursed.
A house investigation of Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine is not going to be subject to claims of executive privilege. Giuliani was presumably acting as a private citizen.
They had better hurry up. The lefties won’t hold the gavel for long. This has been a partisan clusterfuck for the haters.
- Krumhorn
Giuliani has always been the weak link here. Sooner rather than later, Trump and his people are going to have to decide whether it is best to cast him free, for the sake of the mother ship. Hard to judge the calculus of that decision, given that we do not know what Giuliani has over Trump.
The idea is to keep coming up with new lines of attack, which are required when the previous ones all turn out to be damp squibs. It doesn’t matter if there is anything behind them, because once it comes out that Giuliani was entirely within his rights and the law, they will come up with a new attack on somebody else.
"Staff members of the National Security Council were assigned to approve the publication of the book.”
Yes, Lt Col Vindman’s twin brother, who has made millions in Ukraine, but I am sure he keeps a strict firewall in his head between his job at the NSC and his private investments in Ukraine.
The Democrats’ favorite new tactic is to abrogate attorney client privilege, see the dawn raid on Michael Cohen’s office and the seizure of his files. By any means necessary they will cover up their corruption in Ukraine.
When did Ukraine become a “key American ally,” and why wasn’t I notified?
Seriously, it’s a small point that gives away the larger game.
Wasn't the book just submitted for a national security review? I don't think people with financial interests are withholding the book. My guess is the national security review might take the Whitehouse some time to complete.
The way I read the article is that the leak came now because the manuscript was delivered for the review and the deep state leaked it to the NY Times.
Gosh, what does Michael Wolfe have to say about all this? I thought he was the gold standard.
Bolton: Um...the book, as written, won't...um... match my testimony...under oath...exactly.
Publisher: Fuck.
Bolton: I may not have to testify.
Publisher: Fuck.
Bolton: We can still fix it, right? I mean...if I do...testify.
Publisher: Fuck
Kobe Bryant Dies, Democrats hardest hit. While the Demos will be shouting Bolton, Bolton, Bolton, all the public will hear is Kobe, Kobe, Kobe...
Now I don't doubt Trump wanted corruption in the Ukraine investigated since, what was it, over five billion dollars in US funds just disappeared. He might have been warned that it would expose the Bidens but having been run through the ringer with investigations into things he didn't do, he probably didn't care it would expose things the Bidens did.
in 2014, four of the managers, deemed it only deserved #hashtags and bandages, of course Pelosi is deep in the den of thieves through her son, who bundler Pasternak,
and ciaramella comes up through the data mining that apelbaum did, it's rather how striking they want to cover the looting of at least 1.6 billion dollars of us tax payer funds,
ballhaus who was given this story in the journal, was the one who breathlessly announced the fti report about bezos emails, who it turns out were handed to her brother, by the vampish miss sanchez who gave them to the enquirer,
Here we go again.
The utterance of one man/woman can end the Presidency of Donald Trump. What Trump says not only doesn't carry equal weight, it carries no weight at all. This, in a judicial system where the innocent are presumed innocent, and the word of the accused carries the preponderance of weight.
From what I've read it seems Bolton's statement is more nuanced than factual, and the libs/dems are using the worst possible interpretation. As usual.
the same fusion crew at the times, the post and the journal are on staff, so consequently there will be the next round of acme disappointment,
As a Senator I would have zero concern explaining that I am following the law, the Constitution, and 250+ years of tradition in voting on ALL the over whelming evidence presented to me. Democrats have just spent 24 long hours laboriously documenting huge quantities (24! hours worth) of facts supporting their 2 articles of impeachment.
More witnesses? Don't need them. Democrats have already delivered more than enough evidence (according to them) to remove the President. To delay this vote is to delay justice. I vote with the Democrats, and vote to bring this to a close. No need for a never ending addition of more needless evidence.
Dirty trick after dirty trick by the dems, and republicans insist on playing by the rules, it's only fair.
The problem is the rules for republicans are set by the democrats who get to define what's "fair".
Democrats have no rules.
'are you not entertained' where are those pikes, as neil postman presciently noted 'we amuse ourself to death'
Remember that this is the guy that the Democrats refused a deal for Bolton’s testimony to protect.
Princeling Hunter Biden
one of the links I used to make my conclusions,
https://twitter.com/Shem_Infinite/status/1221616448730206209
It has come to a point that I believe very little I read in the news.
Actual, quoted sources? Sometimes (though I always wonder motive).
Anonymous reports? Never.
Leaks? Rarely.
The media has done a wonderful job of destroying itself. Nice job, all.
I think this has been spinning out of control for the Democrats since Pelosi lost her argument against impeachment. Talking to IRL Democrats you can quickly demolish the case for impeachment, but they will reply “but don’t you want him gone?”
Blogger Beasts of England said...
That’s easy, Chuck. The House should have gone to court to produce the witnesses and documents they needed. It’s not the job of the Senate to conduct an investigation; they only hear the case as delivered.
I am not familiar with any law that states, “the Senate is confined to evidence produced in the House.” Such a rule would work a terrible injustice on the accused in an impeachment case who wanted to introduce new witnesses and evidence in a defense. In fact, Senate Rule XI specifically allows a Senate subcommittee to do its own investigation and collect evidence, and Nixon v US held that the Senate rule is non-justiciable.
The bottom line is that unlike the House, that was stymied by the White House’s obstruction, the Senate impeachment trial need not be. A simple majority in the Senate can direct faster, non-justiciable evidence collection. Remember that Senate impeachment subpoenas would bear the signature of the Chief Justice.
Blogger narciso said...
one of the links I used to make my conclusions,
https://twitter.com/Shem_Infinite/status/1221616448730206209
That's some quality work.
Because the second-hand reports are better than what's actually in the book.
C'mon, Professor, get with the program here.
Not one of the book word quoted. Probably because it was an illegal leak by the coup plotters in the NSC.
Mr. Bolton's explosive account ..."
Yet another bombshell. You'd think the White House lawn would be cratered like no man's land.
Two things:
1) Things damaging to Trump always get leaked almost in real time. If Bolton had "The goods" on Trump - it would've been leaked and published already.
2) The DNC-media for 3 years has given us one "Bombshell" after another that was going to "Destroy Trump" - and they all turned out to be lies or exaggerations. The whole Russia-trump was a LIE from start to finish.
The bottom line is that unlike the House, that was stymied by the White House’s obstruction, the Senate impeachment trial need not be. A simple majority in the Senate can direct faster, non-justiciable evidence collection. Remember that Senate impeachment subpoenas would bear the signature of the Chief Justice.
This is pure sophistry from a hater. The House investigation was stymied by the House itself. It’s not up to the Senate to ‘fix’ it for them.
- Krumhorn
"Things damaging to Trump always get leaked almost in real time.”
No, the leaks are timed for maximum effect. Like the Manafort leak that Democrats and the New York Times sat on.
The senate democrats do not have to negotiate on witnesses now. It is a win-win for them. If the senate republicans don't call witnesses it looks like a cover up to most voters.
No, ARM, it will look like a coverup to left wing crazies like you.
This level of self abuse is not good for you. Hair on palms and all that.
I had a pretty good opinion of Bolton until now. He just joined Bill Kristol if this stuff about him is true.
The Democrats keep coming up with bombshells that never go off. And I did not know until this moment (to quote Vito Corleone) that Ukraine was a "key ally." I thought they were one more corrupt sewer rat attached to America's teat.
Not so sure the Democrats really want to give Giuliani the chance to say what he has to say.
In the case of Bolten, I think they'd rather have any derogatory information about Trump come out in Bolton's book after impeachment is over.
dEMOCRAT hack media giving impressions of what is inthe book -that is what counts. Narrative and spin and lies.
The problems Dems have trying to game Republicans is that Democrats don’t understand Republicans. This position of Lindsey Graham will carry the day with a Senate majority, if it comes to that. Even Romney will acquiesce.
Lindsey Graham@LindseyGrahamSC
·
1h
If there is a desire and decision by the Senate to call Democratic witnesses, then at a minimum the Senate should allow President
@realDonaldTrump to call all relevant witnesses he has requested.
Susan Collins will certainly allow Trump all the witnesses he wants.
ARM: "The senate democrats do not have to negotiate on witnesses now. It is a win-win for them. If the senate republicans don't call witnesses it looks like a cover up to most voters."
LOLOLOLOL
Groundhog Day.
The only thing that would make this better would be LLR-lefty Chuck "fave" Brian Stelter doing a Jailhouse interview with Michael Avenatti over reports that Avenatti has multiple NSA "clients" who are willing to come forward to validate the claims that Trump raped US Foreign Policy.
Maybe this is an explanation of ARM's disorder.
I’ve concluded that the congressional Democrats and their base live in a postfactual “inner child” world of fact-free enthusiasms and conniption fits. In their world, a Republican president they cannot manipulate to their will must be impeached and removed from office.
That sounds about right.
Quick question: What do you think Michael Cohen is doing right now?
Remember, he was "Bombshell" #179, but apparently that doesn't carry any "weight" when you are trying to break in on the benchpress machine in the yard.......
Trump is mounting his defense today, but of course that's the last thing the DNC-media wants to discuss. SO, its Bolton's book and how it will "destroy" Trump with its "Bombshell". "Change the subject" has been the DNC-Media's tactic for 3 years now. Whenever Trump defends himself or has some good news, someone in the MSM pops up with an Anonymous source who attacks him for doing blah blah, or a paid-off chickie accuses Trump of kissing them 20 years ago. 92% negative ALL THE TIME.
WashPost-ABC Poll: Trump begins reelection year more competitive against Democrats than he was three months ago.
I'm still waiting for Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck and ARM to reconsider their accusations from just a couple days ago that President Trump ordered a mob hit on Yovanovitch!!!
(That was is going into the LLR-lefty Chuck "vault" alongside Chuck's racist attacks on Ben Carson that Chuck then blamed on Trump for some weird upside-down-world reason)
I wish Lindsey and all the senators would just shut up. They constantly grandstand, posture, bluff, and just shoot their mouths off. Then when they actually vote, it usually contradicts all their tough talk.
Just shut up.
Here's my suggestion. Why don't some people sent Chuck their email addresses. Then he could provide them a daily newsletter: "Chucks's thoughts for the day".
rcocean: "Whenever Trump defends himself or has some good news, someone in the MSM pops up with an Anonymous source who attacks him for doing blah blah, or a paid-off chickie accuses Trump of kissing them 20 years ago. 92% negative ALL THE TIME."
Remember how CNN and a few other of LLR-lefty Chuck's favorite far left networks did interviews while Lindsay Graham gave his opening statement in the Senate hearings with Horowitz?
"Luckily", CNN found the time to cut back to the hearings as soon as Graham was finished and the dems were up......
Yet despite all of that, the nation is not fooled. Not even the dems/LLR-lefties.
rcocean: "Here's my suggestion. Why don't some people sent Chuck their email addresses. Then he could provide them a daily newsletter: "Chucks's thoughts for the day"."
You can obtain LLR-lefty Chuck's "thoughts" more efficiently by simply reviewing Media Matters and Lawfare news feeds.
Adam Schiff@RepAdamSchiff
· 15h
The President blocked our request for Bolton’s testimony....
You could have had Bolton, but felt that protecting the Biden Gang was more important.
rcocean: "I wish Lindsey and all the senators would just shut up. They constantly grandstand, posture, bluff, and just shoot their mouths off. Then when they actually vote, it usually contradicts all their tough talk."
Was it Ace of Spades who wrote Lindsay has a 100% conservative rating on Fox News but only a 50% rating in the Senate? (or something to that effect)
Vindman's twin brother usually clears publications for the NSC.
https://tinyurl.com/tuxchh5
I wonder if this story fits in this scheme?
Andrew Peek came from the State Department. Because the appointment happened in the past two months, it would appear Andrew Peek was recommended by the Dept. of State and accepted for the NSC post by National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.
Here’s how it looks: Andrew Peek was a mole. A resistance spy sent into the Trump administration as part of the allied deep state resistance effort. Someone caught him attempting to access something, and here’s how CTH can tell.
The biggest flare that identifies Andrew Peek’s ideology is the connection to former U.S. General John Allen. CTH has tracked Allen for several years; he was used as part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He spoke at the DNC convention for Hillary Clinton.
Peek was escorted from the White House a week or two ago for some sort of security violation. Probably a Deep State mole in the NSC.
Coincidence ? Another Obama general and his gofer.
Trump exposed and embarrassed powerful people a la "grab them by the pussy... hat" expose of social liberal club. That said, due diligence, fiduciary responsibility, and mitigating progress are impeachable offenses. Exonerate the warlock.
Bolton is making his book 'click bait'. Now more people will buy it and thus he gets $$$. Simple, no?
I bet once it comes out, and all is in context, it will be a nothing burger. Just a way to make money.
I never click on a “tinyurl” anymore than I would eat street food in inland China.
ARM: If the senate republicans don't call witnesses it looks like a cover up to most voters.
That assumes the voters care. At this point it does not appear that anyone does.
The thing about this impeachment proceeding is if Trump did exactly what they claim he did - the quid pro quo - I still don't care. It's very much a "so what" moment.
Aunty Trump, why? It's in Breitbart.
Here you go: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/26/source-alexander-vindmans-brother-yevgeny-clears-publications-by-nsc-officials/
"So which is it? Like a lot of other people, I'm trying to extract the real meaning of the NYT article, "Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says/Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial."
It's the NYT. I despise, detest, and distrust everything in the NYT. The WaPoo, too.
Commenters I zoom by without reading:
Chuck-- liar, banned
Drago-- good guy but obsessed
Inga-- ignorant, banned
narcisco-- undecipherable
etbass: "Drago-- good guy but obsessed"
Tis a heavy burden.
The statement from Bolton's lawyer would seem to foreclose the possibility that there were copies circulating amongst "close associates"- you can't accuse the NSC, the organization responsible for the clearance review, so directly if you know copies are circulating outside that process. Now, having written that, it wouldn't surprise me the leak came from the NSC review staff- what I don't believe is this- that the leak came from pro-Trump staff or Trump himself, which is what the lawyer and the NYTimes is trying to get you to believe.
And, yes, the story is cagily written which strongly suggests that the narrative created isn't really supported by the details in the manuscript. Paraphrasing when you can produce direct quotes just as easily is always suspicious journalistic behavior. The only times I will openly accept a paraphrase (and I would still expect to eventually get access to the original source) is if actual text isn't available for cutting and pasting- not the case here if you believe the reporters.
However, even if I grant the narrative delivered is 100% true- that Trump more or less said this to Bolton, it doesn't add anything significant to the impeachment case- we already knew the aid had been put on hold until early September, we already knew that Trump was agitated about the 2016 election interference by the Ukrainian government, we already knew that Trump and Giuliani, along with even reporters for the NYTimes at one time, were interested in the Bidens' likely influence peddling and probable bribery schemes. We also know that the aid was released in early September and that the Ukrainians didn't have to anything to get it, and it seems quite clear that the Ukrainians never knew why the aid was on hold or that it was officially on hold until just before it was released.
In any case- call Bolton to the Senate and let the two sides depose him along with the people who the story claims can confirm Bolton's account, but Trump gets witnesses to depose, too. That is only fair.
I’m in agreement with the Iowan. It’s not like Bolton’s testimony or any other evidence directly tying the President to a quid pro quo will get enough senators to vote Trump out of office. Just vote and move on with the election.
Lev Parnas hardest hit. This was last weekend's "bombshell" that has now be eclipsed by more horse shit. One things for sure, Trump needs to defenestrate the white house of deep state vermin. I don't know if its possible in his second term to make this a priority but the country would be much better off.
I am not familiar with any law that states, “the Senate is confined to evidence produced in the House.
Let me respond to these DNC talking points posted by he who shall not be named.
Read the Constitution.
Article 1; Section 2: "The House ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"
Article 1; Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"
In other words, the Senate tries the work completed by the House. They do not have the power of impeachment, only the power to judge that impeachment.
Let no disgruntled former adviser not be heard from! Yes, the Dems failed to subpoena him and never actually heard from him, and we all pretty much know what he thinks, and of course Obama refused to send lethal aid to Ukraine, but the future of the Republic hangs on some snarky comments from John Bolton, whom the Dems never once had a good thing to say about.
I’ll save everyone some trouble: I don’t believe anything Bolton has to say about Trump, and it’s all irrelevant anyway. Bolton didn’t just drop from the sky now. He has been around. This is the Kavanaugh playbook all over again, with Bolton being Julie Swetnick and Romney being Jeff Flake. God knows what role Murkowski will play here.
Also, Romney is a prating, pompous fool who completely lacks self-awareness. He would be mired up to his neck in scandal if he had beaten Obama, and he doesn’t even know it. This is what the Dems do.
"I think the Republicans will prefer the risk of appearing to be engaging in a cover up rather than the risk of witnesses..."
You hope. Realistically, it's your only hope; after Trump's acquittal, House D-Rats can impeach him again, for covering up their lack of preparation, and lack of probable cause for an impeachment.
Clarice Feldman has it figured out.
I’ve concluded that the congressional Democrats and their base live in a postfactual “inner child” world of fact-free enthusiasms and conniption fits.
Plus, Schiff is obsessed with Trump. Like real OCD.
Regardless of what the book says, there's nothing impeachment worthy in this whole episode. Every day I think liberals couldn't possibly be any more corrupt or incompetent. And every day they prove me wrong. They're intellectually and morally defective.
This is the Kavanaugh playbook all over again, with Bolton being Julie Swetnick and Romney being Jeff Flake. God knows what role Murkowski will play here.
Exactly. I thought better of Bolton but they really do act like high school kids in the lunch room.
Republicans will do anything and take any risk to keep the witnesses from testifying. However the truth has a way of coming out. What Republicans are doing is trying to save their Party, I doubt it’s being done to save Trump. There is more than half of America that wants to know the truth and they aren’t being lulled into thinking that there is no obstruction and a coverup happening in plain sight.
replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.
Did anyone else notice the word "preferred" in the above?
Doesn't this sorta destroy the whole thing?
So what if he preferred. This is pretty weak sauce.
He didn't demand? He didn't insist? He preferred?
No witnesses were heard in the Senate during Clinton’s impeachment except for the video depositions conducted for the House, which were considered by the House prior to their votes to impeach.
What some FAuxRepublican hack internet lawyers are arguing for here is a do-over in which the House failed to do due diligence and mitigate witnesses before THEY voted to impeach. The real legal question is WHY did the House vote to impeach without first hearing from fact witnesses? Any call for ADDITIONAL witnesses now is in bad faith, revealing the House failed to deliberate soberly and carefully before holding their oh-so-important impeachment vote.
Normal Americans reject such hack lawyer ideas out of simple common sense.
“A house investigation of Giuliani's dealings in Ukraine is not going to be subject to claims of executive privilege. Giuliani was presumably acting as a private citizen.”
I will do this slowly for the leftists here. Congress, which in this case means the House, may have Subpoena power in two different situations: A1S1 Oversight, and A1S2 Impeachment. A1S1 Oversight requires that a subpoena be for a legitimate legislative purpose. Which mostly means investigating the operation of a department, agency, bureau, etc that was created by Congress. The House might have been able to give every committee subpoena power over the entire portion of the government created by Congress. They didn’t. Instead the House, in its rules, chose to delegate subpoena power over a given department, agency, etc, to the committee to which its oversight is assigned. Thus, Wadler’s Judiciary Committee gets to subpoena the FBI, while Schifty’s HPSCI has subpoena power over the CIA and its employees. (This is why Schifty and his HPSCI didn’t have any impeachment related oversight authority, and could only subpoena IC (esp CIA) employees). So, which government agency is involved here? This is a nontrivial hurdle that the House Dems will have to overcome in court in order to enforce any subpoenas against Giuliani, since he was not a government employee or contractor over which Congress had oversight authority - he instead worked for the Presidency which is not subject to Congressional Oversight.
That leaves the House’s A1S2 impeachment power, which must be delegated, by a vote of the entire House, for every impeachment investigation. The first problem here is that there doesn’t appear to be an ongoing impeachment investigation. The investigation of Trump was presumably completed when the House voted out articles of impeachment in late 2019. The House would very likely have to litigate that, if they were to try to subpoena Giuliani. Then they would have to legitimize why they were subpoenaing him. If they are interested in what he heard from Trump, then Trump’s claims of Executive Privilege and Immunity would definitely be relevant. And if concerning his personal diplomacy, they would probably have to show the relevancy to the ongoing impeachment investigation (if there were indeed one ongoing), esp since Presidents at least as early as Jefferson used personal envoys to conduct foreign policy. And there is a very low probability that these issues would be decided by the court system before the election.
All the bombshells have so far been duds, but Dems and RINOs still hope. I admire their childlike innocence.
“replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.
Did anyone else notice the word "preferred" in the above?
Doesn't this sorta destroy the whole thing?
So what if he preferred. This is pretty weak sauce.
He didn't demand? He didn't insist? He preferred?”
All these questions could be answered by allowing him to testify under oath.
When will the trial be over? Everyone seems to be engorged on an endless supply of nothing burgers
Republicans will do anything and take any risk to keep the witnesses from testifying.
If these witnesses are so important, why didn't the House Democrats execute a proper subpoena and then litigate over Executive Privilege?
You guys are just trying to recreate the Kavanaugh hearing circus.
In both cases, a frame up job is the best that the Democrats can do. The frame is so obvious that only the truly cynical or the truly stupid believe it.
ARM: "The senate democrats do not have to negotiate on witnesses now. It is a win-win for them. If the senate republicans don't call witnesses it looks like a cover up to most voters."
Not without the votes of at least four republican sellouts, who never want to be re-elected. The best that the Democrats could expect was trading witnesses, one for one. Next likely possibility is the Democrats getting Bolton, and the Republicans getting whomever they want, very likely including the “whistleblower”, Schifty, and the Bidens, as a starter, in recognition that the process in the House was so stacked against and unfair to the Republicans and Trump, that they were not allowed to call a single witnesses of their choice (they were promised that they would have that in the Judiciary Committee hearing, but that was summarily cancelled long before they would have had a chance at calling any witnesses).
Face it. The Democrats cheated in the House and didn’t allow the President and the House Republicans to call a single witness. Not a single one. That ended when the House delivered its articles of impeachment to the Senate where the Republicans have a majority. Continuing to allow that in the Senate doesn’t pass the laugh test.
they have a full acme subscription, clarice was the real norma rae's attorney, she helped investigate the yablonski mob murder, was the only one to reverse a Watergate related conviction on appeal.
Admiral Inga: "Republicans will do anything and take any risk to keep the witnesses from testifying."
LOL
Inga thinks this will still fly!
Of course, she still thinks Kavanaugh is a gang rapist and Carter Page is a russian spy.
The democrats are still playing "hide the ball" with Atkinson's testimony.
Why do you think that is Inga?
Not to worry. We know you don't have any thoughts of your own, so why don't you find someone you like who has commented on this and cut and paste their response to that question?
Then there's the possibility Bolton conspired with Trump to put damaging information in the book so they could catch another leaker. And it looks like another leaker was caught. As Michael K said, "Peek was escorted from the White House a week or two ago for some sort of security violation. Probably a Deep State mole in the NSC." Pure coincidence? I think not.
Bruce Hayden
Thanks.
Currently President Trump is working with Benjamin Netanyahu on ME peace plans while keeping the economy rocketing along and delivering trade deals and cutting illegal immigration by up to 70% while continuing to rebuild the military and continued reforming of the federal regulations.
Democrats and LLR-lefties continue their 5+ year frame-up and coup plans which the American people have tuned out completely as simple noise.
The question now is what "bombshell" will be tossed out by the dems/LLR-lefties next after the Bolton fizzle?
How long until the dems demand Julie Swetnick be called as a witness?
Lindsey Graham just said that by Thursday he’ll have made a decision on allowing Bolton to testify, as well as other witnesses that Trump’s lawyers want to be called. That’s a change from what he’s been saying the last few weeks.
Drago said...
Tis a heavy burden.
Fortunately you now get to share it with Aunty Trump.
Admiral Inga: "Lindsey Graham just said that by Thursday he’ll have made a decision on allowing Bolton to testify, as well as other witnesses that Trump’s lawyers want to be called. That’s a change from what he’s been saying the last few weeks."
LOL
Sure it is.
Drago said...
Tis a heavy burden.
———————-
ARM said...
Fortunately you now get to share it with Aunty Trump.
————————
LOL, don’t know if you’re right, but it made me chuckle.
“Boy, you gotta carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time
Boy, you gonna carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time…”
According to Collins and Romney, everything you will hear today from the President's defense team can be undone with one sentence from John Bolton.
There would be no other reason for them to "need to hear from John".
indeed
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/01/highlights-of-news_27.html
Gee, it seems like only yesterday when the dems took the White House to court over their Kupperman "subpoena" and then, just when Judge Leon was about to render his judgement on enforcing this "subpoena" the dems magically mystically DROPPED the "subpoena" like it was the coronavirus!!!
And yet, to date, none of our dem/LLR-lefty posters can explain why the dems did that!
Fortunately, about 10,000 other posters and commentators have fully explained it was because EVERY BS "subpoena" request issued by the dems in their magical mystical BS "impeachment"-by-Nancy-Proclamation would be laughed out of court and the dems/LLR-lefties couldn't have that, now could they?
LOL
If Bolton was the magic bullet to get rid of Trump the dems would have gone all in on Kupperman.
BTW, I just love how ARM is attempting to resurrect the "Pelosi is playing 1000-dimension chess" on impeachment strategy gambit!!
Always good for a laugh.
Inga said...
don’t know if you’re right
Aunty Trump is definitely a sock puppet. I would guess either Drago's or Mead's, but it is just a guess. I don't really have anything against someone using a sock puppet. It does undermine the integrity of the discussion somewhat, but if we can accommodate Shouting Thomas I guess we can deal with someone's sock puppet.
"Trump changed the conversation about it by releasing the transcript."
Shifting Schiff from demanding to hear from the "whistleblower" to walling him off..and lying about contact with him, err whoever zir is.
"he frequently lumps together the law enforcement officials who conducted the Russia inquiry with Democrats"
Rightly so.
Quick question: which will have higher ratings this week? Impeachment or America's Funniest Home Videos?
Quick follow up question: is putting forth a new Middle East Peace Plan impeachable?
This all seems part and parcel of the Dem plans.
Dems did NOT delegate the constitutional power to impeach to any House committee. Without that delegation of power, Subpoenas lacked constitutional enforcement mechanism.
Now. Democrats, knowing they would be in this position of attempting to force the Senate to call John Bolton, seem to think that a subpoena would be signed by Chief Justice Roberts. Is that true? The request comes from Roberts? If it does, it doesn't mean the White House is prevented from seeking judicial review. Nor does it cancel executive privilege.
If Bolton shows up, it will be for a deposition, not witness testimony from the well of Senate. Very much a TV event snooze fest. I can't think what the most damaging thing Bolton could claim, that would not contradict known facts. Or, as noted from a comment above, contradict what his book claims.
I have a hard time thinking Senate Dems really want this Senate trial going on for another six weeks. Much like some democrat presidential candidates, the longer the voters are exposed to them, the less they want any part of them. 6 weeks more of Schiff, Schummer, etal, is not a good strategy running up to November.
the law doesn't matter, the abuse of the fisa court doesn't matter, honestly this is when pikes start appealing to me,
"There's a big commercial interest here, and it seems that Bolton's cashing in on his intimacy with the President is more important that serving the people as we are subjected to this impeachment ordeal."
I'm guessing that this book would sell a lot more copies now than it will in March. The reason they're not releasing it is that Bolton would be in deep shit if he violated his White House NDA.
Lindsey Graham just said that by Thursday he’ll have made a decision on allowing Bolton to testify, as well as other witnesses that Trump’s lawyers want to be called. That’s a change from what he’s been saying the last few weeks.
Well just Friday night, Schiff, and Nadler claimed the evidence they had just presented over the previous 24 hours was overwhelming, compelling, and indisputable. Now it seems, "not so much"
Go figure
Remember the issue a little more than a week ago when the National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, was escorted from the White House grounds and is said to be under a security-related investigation?
From Sundance at The Conservative Tree House
Hmmmm
Further, if you say you need to hear from John Bolton to be able to make your decision to remove the President from office, that would mean you're predisposed to doing it.
Blogger Drago said...
Quick question: which will have higher ratings this week? Impeachment or America's Funniest Home Videos?
Or Kobe Bryant funeral ? I expect the Dims to start wondering if Trump was seen near that helicopter.
Attorney General Bill Barr: I can’t believe how the Democrats abused power by forcing an investigation with clearly biased and flimsy evidence against you. I can’t imagine anything worse.
President Trump: Hold my beer.
Yes, people are overlooking something- if Bolton and others are called, they won't be public testimony per the rules passed last week. It will private depositions with cross. The testimony will be released as transcripts and/or as recordings.
Bolton should just issue a press release himself, and soon, however, his financial interests are probably aligned against something like that. Of course, the NYTimes could just released a copy of the sections they paraphrase- it is highly suspicious that they don't, and there is no good reason for the paper to not do so.
Lance = Chuck
To Lance's "credit", with his "Trump: Hold my beer" comment he is every bit as "substantive" and "persuasive" as the House Managers.
Again, if republican senators want to call new witnesses that means they're will to go on a fishing expedition to remove Trump from office.
All of the witnesses that testified in the Senate for the Clinton impeachment first testified in the House. There were no new witnesses.
Lolololol.
Althouse, “guessing” about what is really in the book, and what it might mean, and what the possible motivations are.
The Althouse commentariat, speculating and alleging nefarious interests of Bolton, et al.
Tell you what, people; let’s just sit Mr. Bolton down, in front of a court reporter, and Chief Justice Roberts, and with counsel for the House Managers and counsel for the President there to ask questions, and let ‘er rip.
And then, because we want the President to have his say, do the same with him.
I'm glad Trump put out the fact that the aid was given to Ukraine early along with access to military weapons denied by the Obama Administration [and 4 of the House Managers].
’...counsel for the House Managers...’
When did counsel for the House Managers get added to the equation? Why can’t the great legal minds of the House do their own work?
LLR-Lefty Chuck: "Tell you what, people; let’s just sit Mr. Bolton down, in front of a court reporter, and Chief Justice Roberts, and with counsel for the House Managers and counsel for the President there to ask questions, and let ‘er rip."
Your democrat allies decided that was not something they wanted.
And you fully supported your dem allies not calling those witnesses.
You in fact praised the House democrats for not calling those witnesses.
You called your House dem allies masterful and brilliant for not calling those witnesses.
So thats where we are now.
Sure Chuck.
and R's get the Bidens.
and the whistleblower..for musical relief
and it's unfair to the whistleblower to not put Schiff himself under oath.
I do find it somewhat encouraging that leftists like LLR-lefty Chuck quickly abandoned their transparently moronic accusations of assassination conspiracy against Trump.
So thats something.
Been quiet re the dementia too.
Is anyone watching Kenneth Starr addressing the Senate?
He is giving them a somewhat boring, elementary lecture on the history of impeachment.
No doubt the lawyers in the audience are remembering their time in law school.
“Aunty Trump is definitely a sock puppet.”
I’d say it’s Tim in Vermont’s/ little brown bird’s sock puppet. NTTAWWT
I do find it somewhat encouraging that leftists like LLR-lefty Chuck quickly abandoned their transparently moronic accusations of assassination conspiracy against Trump.
That is until Trump tweets something to the effect his lawyers will bury Bolton. Then they're off and running again.
Blogger Beasts of England said...
“...counsel for the House Managers...”
When did counsel for the House Managers get added to the equation? Why can’t the great legal minds of the House do their own work?
Because one of the fundamental basics of fair cross-examination, regardless of any applicability of the FRCP or FRCrimP, is that only one attorney per party gets to ask questions, and even then it is just one at a time.
Oh boy Ken Starr is really on fire. So excitingzzzzzzz,zzzzz.
’Because one of the fundamental basics of fair cross-examination, regardless of any applicability of the FRCP or FRCrimP, is that only one attorney per party gets to ask questions, and even then it is just one at a time.’
Cool!! Schiff can do it himself. What do the FRCP and FRCrimP say about second- and third-hand testimony?
Oh, you surely have him now! The walls are closing in! Again!
You know, I'd be embarrassed if - after three years of this non-stop bullshit - I kept falling for the same, stupid stuff.
But there you are.
Admiral Inga: "Oh boy Ken Starr is really on fire. So excitingzzzzzzz,zzzzz."
Poor Ken Starr, having to stick to facts and the actual historical record rather than inventing mind-reading-based false narratives.
What fun is that?
Dont worry. Soon enough LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved Schiff-ty will be back at the microphone claiming to have "MORE" evidence of Trump/Russia collusion.
NOBODY KNOWS WHAT (Insert this week's manufactured "bombshell" "witness" name here) KNOWS!!
And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's twin brother is reviewing the hook for the NSC?
Seems legit.
Birkel: "And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's twin brother is reviewing the hook for the NSC?
Seems legit."
They aren't even trying to hide it anymore, are they?
Not that they could.
Ken Starr would be much more exciting if he could tell us what other people were thinking, like the dems.
Starr lacks the engaging psychotic bug eyes of Schitt.
Post a Comment