Tweets President Trump a little while ago (1, 2).
I like his mild tone there. It's refreshing. To me, it's more convincing than the harsher name-calling. I appreciate that you didn't call him, say, Bolton the Snake... but... by the way... You knew he was a snake.
ADDED: The next thing I read feels like an answer to Trump's "Who would do this?" — "The Method in John Bolton’s Madness" by Jonathan Stevenson, "a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and managing editor of Survival [who] was the National Security Council director for political-military affairs, Middle East and North Africa, from 2011 to 2013":
Don’t forget that Mr. Bolton harbors presidential dreams; he came close to a run in 2015, and he maintains a political action committee, through which he doles out money to Republican politicians. And even if Mr. Bolton has let that particular dream die, it’s unlikely that he has hung up his government spurs — instead, he may judge that the Trump ship is sinking and figure that Mr. Bolton might as well accelerate the process and try to position himself for a post in the next administration.
That short-term calculation of Mr. Trump’s political fortunes may not be sound, and Mr. Bolton may be a ruthless pragmatist. But if he does end up further exposing Mr. Trump’s duplicity, in the fullness of time Mr. Bolton will end up, however fortuitously, on the right side of history. That’s a better legacy than he might have secured merely as the third of Mr. Trump’s four (and counting) embattled national security advisers. If nothing else, this week’s revelations show Mr. Bolton, even after being unceremoniously fired by his president, is still one of the cagiest political fighters in town.
Posts
337 comments:
1 – 200 of 337 Newer› Newest»World War Six. That's classic.
Bolton has had some interesting sources of income lately.
Main reason for appointing Bolton: the killer tweets that Trump could write about it years later.
Bolton is the darling of the leftist media?
The CIA is the darling of the leftist media?
The FBI is the darling of the leftist media?
What an interesting world we live in
Back in 2016 I wrote an outline for a musical about the election but I think it’s this election that really deserves one, I’ve never been this entertained by politics in my life.
Obviously one should never trust a regular contributor to Fox News who is the darling of the right wing.
Trump said Bolton knew his personal thoughts on some world leaders that aren't flattering, and if Bolton revealed them it would make it much more difficult to deal with them. Hence, he will not let Bolton testify without a court fight.
Neo-con yea, but a patriot through and through. He would never betray his country, say Bolton supporters. We'll see.
Qatari money has a way of turning Washington establishment types into Soros type puppets.
Althouse did you see Trump's rally speech? Or is this picked out because of Trump's Tweet?
I did not see the rally; I too am looking at Twitter, and saw this one from Aaron Rupar, about Trump's apparent brain malfunction, the Fox News room laughter, and quick cut away from the speech. With the video of Trump's bizarre verbal tic. There is speculation in the thread that Trump is more and more exhibiting frontotemproal lobe dementia.
But maybe it's just a headache. He could walk it off. As long as he is able to walk.
Qatari money has a way of turning Washington establishment types into Soros type puppets.
Also funds jihadis. Common aims ?
Trump-the-victim doesn’t say “winning.”
Bolton is short enough to stand next to Stephy or Todd on the bobblehead circuit. He now has guaranteed income there for a while.
Yet Bolton is the Demtards new savior of the week. Inga probably has a framed portrait of him in her living room!
Actually a song by Al Wilson from 1968.
I wonder what kind of "guy" General John Kelly is to Trump, after he declared yesterday that, "If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton..."?
instead, he may judge that the Trump ship is sinking and figure that Mr. Bolton might as well accelerate the process and try to position himself for a post in the next administration.
Sorry, if the ship goes down, the rats are gonna drown too.
"If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton...”?”
What? That Trump wanted documents known to exist regarding the Democrats, Ukraine, and election interference in 2016? Bring it on please.
Remember, we don’t have quote one from the book yet, just Vindman, at the NSC, who overseas “vetting” charicterization of it. Which you can bet has been couched to maximally damage Trump.
he may judge that the Trump ship is sinking and figure that Mr. Bolton might as well accelerate the process and try to position himself for a post in the next administration.
Standing right next to Romney in that position, no doubt.
I can’t imagine that the Chuck wing of the party really thinks that a betrayal this large will be forgotten by the betrayed. I know people with Asperger’s may not understand human concepts like “betrayal” but it’s a thing, like loyalty.
Never figured Bolton to be a guy who would one day attain "strange new respect" status.
Clown World delivers another one for the "comedy to those who think" file.
And Bolton is even tinier than mini-Mike Bloomberg! He's only 5'7"!
Trump, on the other hand, is a strapping 6'3", and these days appears to scale well more than 300 lbs.
Bolton cagey? That’s a good one. Trump hired this egomaniacal jackass for one reason only: to offer a bark to counter Trump’s purr. Good cop/bad cop. But then the bad cop became enraged idiot cop and had to go.
When all the libs and media tell me what John Bolton says is the most important thing, I tend to believe anything John Bolton says is utterly meaningless.
Bloomberg is developing a little paunch too, I have been noticing.
Judas Bolton.
It was always known that Bolton is far more hawkish than Trump. There was some head scratching when he was appointed, with a popular theory being that he would bring a different voice to act against Trump's dovish instincts. While I have no inside knowledge, Trump has been doing something right and Bolton might be a part of that.
I'm not surprised it ended badly, but I am surprised at Bolton's betrayal. Even if he turns out to be right, it's not going to rescue his reputation.
Don’t forget that Mr. Bolton harbors presidential dreams...
All of these never-Trumpers have presidential dreams. John McCain (RIP), Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol, Bill Kristol's friend David French, their mouthpieces in the media (looking at you National Review). All of the opposition to Trump really is about power, isn't it? Not policy.
I like his mild tone there. It's refreshing. To me, it's more convincing than the harsher name-calling.
It's not different. It was a WW6 zinger, needed a setup that didn't detract from it.
We don't yet know for a fact Bolton betrayed his country. Even if he did, the manuscript is still being vetted, and his treachery may never make it to print.
The amount of backstabbing in Washington makes Snakes On A Plane look like a kiddie's nursery tale.
It is remarkable that anyone could describe Trump's tweet as having a 'mild tone'. Three year of defining deviancy down have had an effect on the public discourse.
Nothing makes ARM’s day like quoting or defending war mongers.
"There is speculation in the thread that Trump is more and more exhibiting frontotemproal lobe dementia."
WHat do you think Chuck? As a night manager at Arby's, you must have seen many of these.
Yesterday, The Babyon Bee reported that walrus-mustachioed John Bolton had agreed to testify for a large bucket of fresh fish.
To be fair, a night manager at Arby's probably has seen more than their fair share of lunatics.
Chuck said...
With the video of Trump's bizarre verbal tic.
In full context, looks more like Trump dexterously going off the telepromter to simplify his rhetoric, and FNC not having the time between shows to pick-up a new line of argument.
Book Deal Bolton!
What a weasel. If he had any integrity, he'd hold a press conference and simply explain that the Prez had a general policy of: (1) less foreign aid to (b) shithole or corrupt countries like Ukraine.
They guy OBVIOUSLY losing a step or two to dementia is Joe Biden. But once again, like the corruption and quid pro quo, some will try to pin it on Trump.
I see Warren has stocked her foreign policy team with neocon types, of the Hillary persuasion. That’s what. this is about, getting the Endless War [TM] foreign policy back on track.
""There is speculation in the thread that Trump is more and more exhibiting frontotemproal lobe dementia.”
Can’t happen to Never Trumpers, since the sacrificed their frontal lobe the day they declared.
Sounds like Bolton’s book may not be released on schedule because of NSC concerns.
"Sounds like Bolton’s book may not be released on schedule because of NSC concerns.”
That likely means that it helps Trump.
I agree Prol. I'm not a fan of the tweet as it seems to lash out at Bolton. The line about WW6 is great and if that was the tweet, I think it would have been more effective for the target audience of Romney and Collins. Alas Trump is a better communicator than me.
The subtitle of every Washington memoir is “If only they had listened to me.”
The train has left the station, and people like Bolton are standing on the platform crying, “But I have a first class ticket! They can’t leave without me!”
I at one time admired John Bolton, but he is a one-trick pony. It is amusing that Kelly endorses Bolton’s story, whatever it is.
I am not a fan of Trump’s methodology, but it has been ruthlessly revealing of the character of people like Bolton, Romney, Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, every Democrat out there, etc. They are consumed with envy and dominated by feelings of entitlement. Trump’s successes have driven them crazy.
LLR, MD
Still 100% wrong, now speaking with the authority of TWO licensed professions without a shred of proof she knows what she’s saying.
It is pretty funny to watch Bolton go from Nightmare on Elm Street to hero in the eyes of lefties like ARM.
Sort of like the switch in Hollywood communists when Hitler invaded the USSR.
Lillian Hellman was rewriting for two weeks.
’Trump’s successes have driven them crazy.’
He revealed them as fools. And men in their positions can't afford to be made to look ridiculous!!
Nice to see our lefties/LLR-lefties taking their first incremental baby steps towards acceptance their Sham-Wow-Peachment effort has failed and will not save their Biden Savior from what is coming.
Hence the return to 25th Amendment stuff soon to be followed by "EMOLUMENTS!!1!1eleventy1!1!!1!"
It is pretty funny that some people can't see the entertainment value in watching two old right wingers, who have both lost a step, ripping each other apart in public. Trump's presidency, for all its faults, has always been entertaining.
“If nothing else, this week’s revelations show Mr. Bolton, even after being unceremoniously fired by his president, is still one of the cagiest political fighters in town.”
Washington has more than enough cagey political fighters. It’s the primary cause of the current malfunction of our institutions.
"mockturtle said...
Yesterday, The Babyon Bee reported that walrus-mustachioed John Bolton had agreed to testify for a large bucket of fresh fish."
Hahah; how Althouse doesn't like The Bee is beyond me.
“If nothing else, this week’s revelations show Mr. Bolton, even after being unceremoniously fired by his president, is still one of the cagiest political fighters in town.”
There Trump goes again, putting people in cages.
Yeah, Bolton has gone from triumph to triumph. His best act was making faces at the Europeans during the W Bush years.
Just to repeat a comment I made her almost two years ago: "For someone who ran a campaign criticizing much of US foreign policy for the last 20 years, Trump made a colossal blunder in hiring John Bolton."
The amount of frustration on both sides of the aisle with everything that has happened in the Middle East since 2001 is huge. We could debate W’s policies, but Obama’s were different and worse, so everyone has something to attack and something to defend. You know where Bolton stands (WWVI). He doesn’t like Trump because Trump didn’t listen to him and tell him he is a genius.
Sheesh.
ARM (with today's narrative): "It is pretty funny that some people can't see the entertainment value in watching two old right wingers, who have both lost a step,..."
Yesterday's narrative: Trump is non-conservative liberal-deep down party-switching felllow.
In ARM's defense, those were yesterday's talking points and all previous democrat/lefty/LLR-lefty talking points become inoperative upon the start of the new day in order to make way for the new.
As to Jonathan Stevenson, I don't think so...wishful thinking.
Trump's presidency, for all its faults, has always been entertaining.
Especially the winning. Very entertaining. HD 28, for example.
"Hahah; how Althouse doesn't like The Bee is beyond me."
Because she's a true blue liberal, a target of that "sting like a bee."
Trump made a colossal blunder in hiring John Bolton."
I wouldn't call it "colossal" (Did I spell that right?). He is learning that all the old GOP types are snakes. Bad advice, maybe , but these guys like Kelly and Bolton all have one note instruments.
It is fun to watch Democrats flip, though.
@Amadeus48:
We could debate W’s policies, but Obama’s were different and worse, so everyone has something to attack and something to defend.
Obama's policies were certainly just as godawful, but I would not say "worse." None of Obama's blunders rose to the sheer godawful stupidity of the Iraq War.
None of Obama's blunders rose to the sheer godawful stupidity of the Iraq War.
Totally agree, Farmer!
Bad advice, maybe , but these guys like Kelly and Bolton all have one note instruments.
Hiring your National Security Adviser out of pity usually isn't going to produce terrific results.
Swamp creature Stevenson heard from! Ok..
.
Regarding Bolton, I wrote this as a reply to Roughcoat, Michael K., and others in a previous thread, then forgot about it in notepad until it was too late to bother with -- but it's perfectly apropos here too: it was a lot easier to like and admire Bolton when the main thing we knew about him was that we shared a deep and well-justified hatred of the United Nations.
As predicted here, it didn't take long for Dems to like Bolton after he left Trump -- Bolton, of all people, whose guts they've hated for decades. But I admit the reversal was even more striking than I expected: now Bolton, of all people, needs to be their savior -- to prove, not that Trump did anything bad, which he obviously didn't, but that the wanted to do something bad, for which thought crime he needs to be impeached.
As his recent conduct shows, Bolton loves the swamp and the limelight more than the country.
Hiring your National Security Adviser out of pity usually isn't going to produce terrific results.
Fair enough but who is there ? When you have a paradigm change like Trump, who do you choose? Flynn was the one who should have been there the past three years but the deep state took him out early.
Remember the NSA is an ADVISOR. Taking advice should be voluntary. It's been years since the advice was novel.
Concerning Trump's mistakes, consider that being president is an on the job training position, smart people learn from their mistakes. I think Trump is getting better and better and I'm looking forward to his landslide victory in November so he can continue doing...you know what...MAGA.
Fair enough but who is there?
Andrew Bacevich would have been an inspired choice.
OMG. Figures Farmer would be a fan of Bacevich. Inspired, sure... From the pits of hell itself.
"how Althouse doesn't like The Bee is beyond me."
Maybe she made the mistake, early on, of reading some of the entire articles. The Bee has wonderful, hysterically funny headlines, but like The Onion far too often the entire joke is perfectly encapsulated in the headline, so the story itself seems nothing but boringly plodding.
Anybody who thinks that Obama's Libya adventure wasn't orders of magnitude stupider than Iraq is simply not worth paying attention to.
Lol.
Althouse has a John Bolton tag. Have any of you looked back at old comments, to see what Althouse’s commenters were saying back when John Bolton was a conservative ass-kicker, star of FNC, and then Trump’s choice as NSA?
My view of Bolton was much the same as many of you. I liked Bolton; I probably wouldn’t want him as my Secretary of State but I would want his advice on everything. And when he was a part of Fox or the Trump Administration, most of you seemed to have liked him. But disagree with Trump? Even when he’s telling the truth and Trump is lying?
This is why Trumpism is a cult. A personality cult. Few of you would have any policy disagreements with Bolton. It all comes down to loyalty or disloyalty to Trump.
instead, [Bolton] may judge that the Trump ship is sinking
Guy needs help with his judgement then.
Black Missionary Arrives At White Church To Teach Them How To Clap On Beat
Don Lemon Furious About His Privacy Being Invaded By People Actually Watching His Show
Threat? Bolton Wakes Up Next To His Dead Mustache
Democrats Warn That American People May Tamper With Next Election
In Genius Move, Trump Supports Impeachment, Forcing Democrats To Oppose
Funny stuff.
LLR-lefty Chuck: "Few of you would have any policy disagreements with Bolton."
LOLOLOLOL
Amazing isn't it?
Day after day of opposition to Bolton neo-Con war plans for years and years and LLR-lefty Chuck writes that!!
It's almost as if LLR-lefty Chuck is completely unable to integrate actual facts on the ground into his NYT/Lawfare/CNN-driven world view.
Which explains why he, like his "elite" masters, is wrong on every major issue/policy and has been for years.
The good news? Our opponents are incapable of learning and adaptation.
It bodes very very well for the general election in Nov.
I liked Bolton as Gutfeld's straight man. He had just the right level of obliviousness to what was going on around him. Otherwise, I didn't care for him. Too Bushy. And not just the mustache.
@Kirk Parker:
Anybody who thinks that Obama's Libya adventure wasn't orders of magnitude stupider than Iraq is simply not worth paying attention to.
Anybody who thinks that Bush's Iraq adventure wasn't orders of magnitude stupider than Libya is simply not worth paying attention to.
Change my mind.
My view of Bolton was much the same as many of you. I liked Bolton; I probably wouldn’t want him as my Secretary of State but I would want his advice on everything.
Sure. Get his "advice on everything." And then do the exact opposite.
I’m taking a wait and see position on the later Bolton kerfuffle.
Trumps tweet on Bolton is suspiciously nice...
"I would want his advice on everything."
As someone said above the key word is "advice". I always wanted a range of opinions from my staff. Every one needing to be able to clearly present and defend their position. The discussions tended, at times, to be messy. But once the decision was made, it was made for EVERYONE.
Bolton's problem, as with several of the "devastating" House witnesses, is that NOT adopting their advice is considered tantamount to treason.
Trump made a colossal blunder in hiring John Bolton.
Agreed. The biggest failing of Trump's first term has been his difficulty in hiring people. Because he was not a Republican party insider, he did have binders full of candidates. Leaving Obama minions in place and hiring GOP insiders were near tragic mistakes.
The nomination of judges has been a different story.
Not once, not ever, have I written anything negative about Bolton on these pages.
Drago, what is wrong with you?
Althouse why don’t you stop this abuse? Not for my sake, but for the readability of your comments pages.
A trio of moderate Democrats could give Trump the bipartisan acquittal he’s eagerly seeking
-Politico
Yet, several republicans say they need to hear what John Bolton says. It can mean nothing short of their vote is in the hands of John Bolton.
Farmer: "Anybody who thinks that Bush's Iraq adventure wasn't orders of magnitude stupider than Libya is simply not worth paying attention to.
Change my mind."
Comparisons and measuring relative "stupidity" of these events, both of which have triggered so many horrific, negative, disruptive etc consequences, is quite difficult.
Let's just say both were quite stupid in their own ways.
Ironically, as we write these words the EU parliament is debating the EU bill to "allow" Brexit (spoiler: they have no real choice).
It could easily be argued that the Libyan debacle concocted by LLR-lefty Chuck's "magnificent" obama was the key event leading to Merkel's (and her toy Macron's) plan to flood Europe with refugees in order to replace the electorates of nations who are reluctant to play a part in establishing Merkel's Fourth Reich thru ever increasing EU regulatory strangleholds over all aspects of National life throughout Europe, including the creation of an EU Army, separate from NATO, and was explicitly called for to counter, and I quote, "Russia, China and the United States".
That's right, our EU "allies" are calling for an Army to be built in parallel to NATO to stand up to the US.
Meanwhile, we have open air slave markets in Libya and violent crime running rampant across Europe destabilizing those societies.
Of course, this conversation could go on and on. Lets just agree on the first order fundamentals: Current Western "elites" are the worst elites in the history of western civilization with the lone caveat being those individuals and groups overseeing the destruction of the Roman empire.
@Francisco D:
The nomination of judges has been a different story.
That's true. But nearly any of the major GOP candidates in 2016 would have given us Federalist Society judges, tax cutes, and deregulation. Those were not the areas Trump distinguished himself from the competition. It was immigration, trade, and foreign wars. And in these areas, I think, the administration has been less than perspicacious. Granted, I am an unwavering pessimist and doomsayer. I think Trump's first term is shaping up to be an emblematic example of how one can win most of the battles and still lose the war.
’It all comes down to loyalty or disloyalty to Trump.’
Loyalty is a damned fine trait for an advisor, asshat.
Maybe Trump hired Bolton to use like a reverse barometer. Whenever Bolton said we should increase troop strength in Syria, send troops to fight for the Kurds, attack North Korea or cruise missile Iran Trump would do the opposite. Maybe Trump can fill that empty spot with Max Boot or Irving Kristol?
Thank god for that memory hole!
John Bolton is a very bad man. One of the worst, people are saying.
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty and Supposed Legal Beagle Lawyer Chuck: "Not once, not ever, have I written anything negative about Bolton on these pages."
LOLOLOLOL
I never said you did. Careful now, if you keep making such fundamental errors about the arguments being advanced by others you might end up the butt of jokes made by your moron heroes on CNN.
I wrote, quite clearly, that your claim that conservative posters here would not disagree with policies advanced by Bolton is laughably false.
But only laughably!!
Next Topic for discussion: Banned Commenters complaining to Blog Owners to shut down other commenters!
Thoughts?
OT via Rantburg:
Fox News] Dr. Marc Siegal: "just now beginning to impose quarantines and travel restrictions in and around Wuhan a full year after the virus was first reported.
Cue the jokes on the similarities between Xi/China/Elites and our dying LSM.
The Iraq war that started with the first Bush, that persisted under Clinton, that ended with the second Bush, or that was saved and progressed under Obama? The refugee crises, the trails of tears, the abortion zones, the collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout (not limited to democratic gerrymandering)? The Iranian deal that placed the Iranian regime and terrorist proxies first?
@Drago:
Agree with most of what you wrote there regarding the refugee crisis, though the key event in Germany's throwing open the floodgates on refugees was not from Libya but from Syria. The death of Alan Kurdi and the subsequent photograph of his body washed ashore was probably the key pivot point.
On Iraq vs. Libya, also agree that these kinds of measure are a bit amorphous and not easy to rank order. I will just say that Iraq is more than six times larger than Libya, much more geostrategically situated, and we still have thousands of American troops deployed to the area in order to clean up the mess the Iraq War created. Also, given the prominence that Iran plays in our middle east strategy, nothing has increased Iran's power and influence in the region as much as the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
n.n: "The Iraq war that started with the first Bush, that persisted under Clinton, that ended with the second Bush, or that was saved and progressed under Obama? The refugee crises, the trails of tears, the abortion zones, the collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout (not limited to democratic gerrymandering)? The Iranian deal that placed the Iranian regime and terrorist proxies first?"
I was operating off the assumption Farmer was going with the removal of Hussein as opposed to say ejecting Iraq from Kuwait or even further back Carter helping the radicals get the Ayatollah back into Iran and abandoning the Shah.
’Thoughts?’
You are cruisin’ for a bruisin’, sir!! :)
J. Farmer: "@Drago:
Agree with most of what you wrote there regarding the refugee crisis, though the key event in Germany's throwing open the floodgates on refugees was not from Libya but from Syria."
We are basically on the same page.
Beasts of England: "You are cruisin’ for a bruisin’, sir!! :)"
What is the world coming to when a Banned Commenter like LLR-lefty Chuck can't get the blog moderators to shut down the postings of non-banned commenters?
I mean, what's up with that?
It is a cosmic injustice, that much I know.....
Well, I guess that I'm one of the guilty people also. For a long time I trusted the Republican establishment. I started to lose faith with Daddy Bush, and when Baby Bush took over it was finalized. I was a Conservative and had nothing in common with Republicans. I see that Trump evidently made the same mistakes as I.
Let's give Trump some credit, he will, and has, fired people who didn't pan out, and good for him.
Trump 2020... and beyond.
I thought Bolton was a terrible hire the day Trump made it, and was glad to see him fired last Summer. Trump has hired far too many neocons, but to his credit hasn't listened to them to the same degree that Bush and Obama did.
As I pointed out last night- Bolton won't be testifying publicly if called- he will be deposed and crossed in a private setting, so it won't be Blasey Ford all over again. I also pointed out that the NYTimes put out the most damaging part as pertains the trial and it added nothing substantial to what we already knew.
BTW, is anyone else paying attention to LLR-lefty Chuck's hero Slow Joe Biden's campaign trail mental collapse?
We are not even at 10% pressure on this leaky boiler-brain and he is already spewing steam in every direction as evidenced by his attempted manhandling of ANOTHER questioner who is simply asking a basic question our moron dem candidate should be fully prepared for.
This is always quickly followed up with a now-patented Biden "Vote for somebody else!" comment.
By the time this campaign is thru to Super Tuesday there will be enough of these "incidents" to run these Bidenisms on a loop!
"Anybody who thinks that Bush's Iraq adventure wasn't orders of magnitude stupider than Libya is simply not worth paying attention to."
Bush's "adventure" was the opening, the rest followed as night does day. But this goes back to Afghanistan as the beginning, not Iraq. Remember, we were fucking up in Afghanistan for 18 months before Iraq. Obama declared Afghanistan the good war, and Iraq the bad one with no logic at all, and then proceeded to listen to neo-cons and destabilized Libya and Syria, made Iraq worse, and surged in Afghanistan.
Trump's biggest failure so far is failing to bring the troops home. Let these countries sort themselves out minus our soldiers' blood and our money.
We are basically on the same page.
Indeed.
"Althouse why don’t you stop this abuse? Not for my sake, but for the readability of your comments pages."
Chuck- I never advocate banning someone in a comments page, but if Althouse were interested in improving the readibility of the her blog's comment section, she would ban you and only you. Even Ritmo does less damage by his presence and attitude.
What is it with Trump hiring all these down-in-the-mouth losers?
Kelly, McMaster, Mattis, Tillerson, Bannon, now Bolton...just one witless bum after another.
I'm tellin' ya, Trump had better pick up the pace, or some folks might start to think he doesn't have a clue about what he's doing.
bbkingfish: "I'm tellin' ya, Trump had better pick up the pace, or some folks might start to think he doesn't have a clue about what he's doing."
LOLOLOLOL
Yeah, that's what "folks" are thinking alright.
You keep believing that.....
Why is Trump constantly hiring these untrustworthy goofballs because they beg him for a job? I'm beginning to think he does it deliberately, to portray himself and the "Nice Guy" who's giving people chances and then ends up Betrayed.
What's funniest about bbkingfish's comment is that 90 to 95% of all Americans wouldn't recognize a single one of the names of current or former cabinet members.
Which is appropriate.
The President is responsible for the results of his administration and so Trump is seen as responsible for the massive improvement across the board in all aspects of the economy as demonstrated in Gallup's Satisfaction survey.
But thanks for playing bbkingfish. You're doing "great". Hang in there.
Of course, the D's were going to impeach Trump no matter what. So it doesn't really matter that Trump hired Bolton.
Chuck wrote:
"Althouse has a John Bolton tag. Have any of you looked back at old comments, to see what Althouse’s commenters were saying back when John Bolton was a conservative ass-kicker, star of FNC, and then Trump’s choice as NSA?"
I did exactly that, Chuck, and your characterization of the commenters is almost completely wrong- I found exactly one commenter, Gahrie, who was enthusiatic about Bolton being in the Trump Administration. Most of us didn't like the Bolton hire, or at least thought it wouldn't do any damage, and most of us like it that he was fired, including myself. I checked every tag going back to 2013. Beyond that point in time, the commenters are different group almost entirely.
Drago...non-responsive, as usual.
Happy larpin' this weekend, Drago!
The interesting thing is Trump's way of hiring all the Deep State compromised guys that are sent to him, then watching their performances with special electronic surveillance to catch their upstream handlers they report to. Then suddenly, Your Fired. Remember McMaster,Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, Nielsen, and last but not least, Coats. The man has a plan.
World War Six? If he watched CNN more, he'd know we are already on the brink of World War Seven.
bbkingfish: "Drago...non-responsive, as usual."
Your hilarious and moronic comment required no "response" in the same way that an infants gurgling requires no response, save for the possibility that you are simply on the hunt for a bottle of milk to be shoved into your mouth.
What is the Democrat trial strategy here? To turn the Senate trial into an ongoing investigation of the Trump Administration a la Mueller?
Stop the trial, while we litigate through the courts Trump's invocation of Executive Privilege to prevent Bolton's testimony! Then, when and if Bolton testifies, demand that each further witness he claims backs up his story be similarly compelled to testify. It's effectively turning a criminal trial into a criminal investigation. What court would ever allow prosecutors to bring a shoddy half-assed case, and then use the trial itself to continue the investigation?
It seems that Cocaine Mitch is working a strong trade on witnesses. Let the prosecution have Mulvaney and Bolton, while the defense gets Hunter, Ciaramella, and maybe a few others. And the reason it’s strong: the Dems can’t vote for it. No witnesses; trial over Saturday with an acquittal of President Trump.
robother: "What is the Democrat trial strategy here? To turn the Senate trial into an ongoing investigation of the Trump Administration a la Mueller?"
Yep.
And a la Kavanaugh.
Stevenson makes many questionable assertions. Did Bolton really want the presidency in a serious way or think that he could win it? Does he really have serious expectations that any future president would appoint him to anything? If Bolton is going to be remembered by anybody wouldn't it be more for his role in the Bush administration - or even for his Fox News appearances - rather that for the short time he was with Trump? I suppose Bolton is "cagey" in the sense of being elusive and hard to pin down right now. But in the sense of clever or crafty or shrewd? And more so than others in Washington?
I was happy Bolton joined the administration, and probably said so here.
Context matters. Look at all the back stabbing snakes Trump has gone through because he hired them on the recommendations of the back stabbing snakes that recommend the hiring that are still there.
At least with Bolton you had an America first advisor. Yes, he's a war monger, but I was confident Trump could keep a lid on him. And, he did.
’At least with Bolton you had an America first advisor.’
Precisely. He is a neocon - there’s no doubt about that - but I never questioned his patriotism. As you alluded to: he was an advisor and it’s okay to hear his perspective, because Trump knew from where he argued on the spectrum.
J. Farmer said...
@Francisco D:
The nomination of judges has been a different story.
That's true. But nearly any of the major GOP candidates in 2016 would have given us Federalist Society judges, tax cutes, and deregulation...
Ha, ha.
Ha, ha, ha!
HA! HA! HA!...............
Could have, yes. Would have? LoL! Soon as the media started criticizing them for it.... Yeah, they'd have all backed down. Each and every one of them.
I voted for Trump because, and solely because, he wasn't Hillary. In Robert Heinlein's words, sort of, you should always vote, because there's at least one candidate you can vote against even if you don't really like or even know the other. In 2020, I'll be voting for Trump because - he is Trump.
Anyone who is not now listening to the impeachment trial in the Senate is really missing out.
Senator Ed Markey asked the House Managers if it were true, as President Trump claimed in a recent Tweet, that the House never even asked John Bolton to testify. Rep. Schiff answered for the House Managers and utterly destroyed the President’s recklessly untrue Tweet.
Schiff went through the history of their requests to Bolton, Bolton’s assistant Charles Kupperman, and two lower NSC assistants. Kupperman refused absent a subpoena, and when a subpoena was issued a subpoena, he sued the House. And Bolton said that he would join that litigation if he were subpoenaed. A position that Bolton seems to have reconsidered since the House last had the matter.
The five minutes that Schiff had were a savage takedown of the Trump Tweet.
Stevenson was the nsc chief for north Africa, during the so called arab spring, they have no shame, the Libyan intervention put us on the side of jihadists from north Africa and equatorial Africa, sort of the same situation we've been in since bosnia,
no he was not a neocon, his history goes back to goldwater, and staff aide to jesse helms, a unilateralist, a nationalist, a skeptic of the arms control clerisy,
House Bolton, Our Blades Are Sharp.
Drudge: "McConnell Doesn't Have The Votes"; the New York Times: "GOP Leaders Express Growing Confidence They Can Block Witnesses". Something's up.
The five minutes that Schiff had were a savage takedown of the Trump Tweet.
Lord have mercy.
If they go after the "doctored" tweet of Trump giving a medal to a dog he's toast!
strobe Talbott, cirincione et al, are of that crew, so is much of the stimson center, whose confidence in arms control agreements, have been found wanting,
Bolton wasn't involved in Iraq war planning, he did believe that Iraq had that spectrum of chemical and biological weapons, that was the conventional wisdom, and it was born out by the cable traffic uncovered by WikiLeaks,
’Kupperman refused absent a subpoena, and when a subpoena was issued a subpoena, he sued the House.’
🤣
And then the House rescinded his subpoena. You left that part out. Unexpectedly.
Chuck,
Schiff is lying- the House never issued a single subpoena, not one. Every single document was a request that couldn't be taken to court by the House for possible enforcement. That you don't know this isn't surprising considering your past legal assertions. I could refer you to the multiple comments that Bruce Hayden and others have made on this issue, but you won't bother reading them anyway- you just take Schiff's word for it every time.
In short, Schiff's strategy was to shorten the impeachment inquiry portion by avoiding the courts altogether. Had he actually issued valid subpoenae, the court cases would have still been working through the courts, and the impeachment itself stalled until they were resolved.
he's like chip dillard isn't he, actually morrison relayed Bolton's concerns well enough, miss hill was just repeating whatever gossip the journalist is sloshing around,
those in massachussetts know biz markey isn't bowling with a full set, any debate with him, is like playing checkers while the rest are playing chess,
""GOP Leaders Express Growing Confidence They Can Block Witnesses". Something's up.”
Manchin wants Biden Jr is what is up.
Chuck,
Was a "subpoena" ever actually issued by the House?
My understanding is that what was issued was merely letter, not an actual "subpoena" and that it had no legal standing. If it had no legal standing, responding would be voluntary, wouldn't it?
I don't pretend to be a lawyer but it seems like not answering a non-subpoena or contacting a real subpoena (if it was) would be a reasonable response for anyone.
So was it was our was it wasn't a real subpoena, Chuck?
John Henry
’...and the impeachment itself stalled until they were resolved.’
The presiding judge offered a fast track for the hearing and it would have been settled last week. Their problem was: if the judge ruled in favor of Trump’s side, the House would have no ‘Obstruction of Congress’ article.
Marc wrote:
"Drudge: "McConnell Doesn't Have The Votes"; the New York Times: "GOP Leaders Express Growing Confidence They Can Block Witnesses". Something's up."
I described what's up last night in the overnight thread. At least 4 Republicans have made Schumer an offer- the Democrats get Bolton (and probably Mulvaney, too), but they will have to accept that the Trump defense gets to call their witnesses too- and those witnesses are going to be Ciaramella, Atkinson, possibly both Bidens, members of Schiff's staff, and witnesses to rebut the Democrats' witnesses from both the House "investigation" and during the trial itself. Romney warned the Democrats just yesterday that the Democrats only getting their witnesses wasn't tenable or fair.
In short, lists have been prepared that includes all the witnesses in question from both sides, and Schumer has to decide whether or not to accept any of them. If he accepts one, then the list will be voted on, not individual witnesses. I suspect, from last night's Graham interview that Schumer has so far declined any list that includes the Trump defense witness list- until Schumer accepts, it is likely that McConnell will have the votes to win- all he has to do is put up a vote for one of the list and let the Democrats do most of the nay votes.
Contesting, not contacting a subpoena above.
John Henry
J. Farmer: Change my mind.
Libya is worse because we already made a lot of recognizable mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Libya is worse because Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program and stopped supporting terrorism in 2005, in the wake of Saddam's overthrow, and the U.S. promised to leave him alone. A decade later he is overthrown, sodomized and executed.
[At about the same time, Ukraine is assaulted by Russia. When the Ukraine gave up its Soviet-inherited nuclear arsenal the U.S. and U.K. promised to protect Ukrainian sovereignty, albeit not a treaty obligation.]
Libya beats Iraq.
Benedict Arnold was a great commander until one day he wasn’t Bolton was a good barb against the namby pamby policies of Obama, but I figured that Trump just wanted him as a bad cop. He could allow Trump to say “Look what I’m dealing with here boys.”
It turns out that Bolton took money from the Clinton Foundation and some Ukrainian oligarch and promised them that Trump wouldn’t be able to change foreign policy in any significant way. So I am not really sure that the Democrats actually *want* him to testify. They would rather be able to bellyache about a coverup and never have Bolton testify.
I believe Mitch has them boxed-in, Yancey Ward. Brilliant.
Why is Trump constantly hiring these untrustworthy goofballs because they beg him for a job? I'm beginning to think he does it deliberately, to portray himself and the "Nice Guy" who's giving people chances and then ends up Betrayed.
Republican and Democrat insiders populate every administration. When Trump tried to hire a different breed (e.g., Rex Tillerson and John Kelly) he found that they were just as swampy.
Even some of the people he can sort of trust (e.g., Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham) know that Trump is gone in 2024 and they will play ball with him until then. Actually they will stab him in the back the last two years of his second term. That is how it is done in DC.
Back to my first point, it really doesn't matter who the Democrat POTUS nominee is except for their popular appeal. If they win, the same Democrat apparatchicks will fill the Administration and the same judges will be nominated. There will not be a dimes worth of difference if Bernie or Biden become POTUS.
“Senator Ed Markey asked the House Managers if it were true, as President Trump claimed in a recent Tweet, that the House never even asked John Bolton to testify. Rep. Schiff answered for the House Managers and utterly destroyed the President’s recklessly untrue Tweet.
Schiff went through the history of their requests to Bolton, Bolton’s assistant Charles Kupperman, and two lower NSC assistants. Kupperman refused absent a subpoena, and when a subpoena was issued a subpoena, he sued the House. And Bolton said that he would join that litigation if he were subpoenaed. A position that Bolton seems to have reconsidered since the House last had the matter.”
Republicans not doing so well today. Their arguments are falling flat, thump, splat. I bet very few Trumpists are watching today.
Lol!
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asks both sides why the House didn’t take a case to court addressing the claim of Executive Privilege during the House impeachment inquiry.
And Rep. Hakeem Jeffries had the answer in his first sentence; the President never formally claimed Executive Privilege during the House impeachment proceedings.
This is just game theory- McConnell is in control of what gets offered for a vote- he won't allow for individual votes on each witness without a public guarantee from the Democrats to support all the witnesses requested by the defense.
What Schumer is trying to get is either a blanket vote on a motion for no witnesses at all, or just a vote on his desired witnesses where he hopes to peel off enough Republicans to get his list, and defeat any defense list. McConnell is going to make the Democrats vote on a combined list- McConnell will call the bluff, if it is a bluff.
The DOJ should instigate an investigation in Biden's clear corruption.
Chuck and Inga just posted the same disingenuous spin from the same source. Unexpectedly.
"Anybody who thinks that Bush's Iraq adventure wasn't orders of magnitude stupider than Libya is simply not worth paying attention to.
Change my mind”
First, remember that Iraq came first, then remember that we had elections in 2006 and 2008 that soundly rejected regime change, then watch this clip from Mom and Dad save the World
”That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard!
After you have done all that, tell me that Libya wasn’t stupider. Plus include the part about why would Kim make a deal with us after what we did to Khadaffy after his deal?
Chuck, you fucking moron- Trump never formally claimed executive privilege because the House never issued a subpoena. When the witnesses declined the request for testimony, they did so because they felt bound by the executive branch NDAs they signed when they joined the White House staff. Trump could have claimed executive privilege on all the witnesses from the NSC and State Department that did appear, but he didn't. Think that last part over, you dumb fuck.
" the President never formally claimed Executive Privilege during the House impeachment proceedings.”
Sick burn.
this travismockasham has gone far enough, now the interesting witnesses like ciaramella who were involved in the firing of shokin, well 'their lips will be moving' about their motives both in the spring of 2016, and a year later, then you have Atkinson, who was a party to the fisa fraud, that got us here,
I described what's up last night in the overnight thread.... What Schumer is trying to get is either a blanket vote on a motion for no witnesses at all, or just a vote on his desired witnesses where he hopes to peel off enough Republicans to get his list, and defeat any defense list. McConnell is going to make the Democrats vote on a combined list....
I believe Mitch has them boxed-in, Yancey Ward. Brilliant.
Thank you for following it all so carefully.
What seems more likely at this point? More witnesses that just bring more scrutiny to the "whistleblower" and the crooked Bidens or an additional witness who's testimony will not materially affect the outcome of eventual acquittal for Trump? Hmm that's a real puzzler. :-P My money's on Murder Turtle shutting down additional witnesses on Friday.
"then you have Atkinson, who was a party to the fisa fraud, that got us here,”
There’s another reason why Democrats don’t want witnesses. They would rather lie about stuff we can’t see that present us with had evidence.
it's rather striking these blank pages, that one has to resort to the research skills of Stephen McIntyre, who has cut through this Pripyat, which involves the 1.6 billion looting of Privat bank only, total losses are in the 5.5 billion range, imf and us tax payer monies,
"What Schumer is trying to get is either a blanket vote on a motion for no witnesses at all, or just a vote on his desired witnesses “
The objection has never really been about no witnesses, it’s always been about there only being Democrat witnesses, as happened in the House.
Uh, oh!! Inga was honest enough to provide quotation marks for her copies and pastes comment at 1:20, but Chuck’s exact same verbiage at 12:58 lacks any such punctuation. Wow. You’d think an honorable $1,000 per hour attorney would avoid plagiarism at all costs.
“There’s another reason why Democrats don’t want witnesses. They would rather lie about stuff we can’t see that present us with had evidence.”
“On week two of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, registered voters say 75 - 20 percent that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pea-ack) University national poll released today. Support for witness testimony includes 49 percent of Republicans, 95 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents.”
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3654
The Democrats who are participating in the Impeachment trial most certainly do want witnesses. To suggest that they don’t is just silly. One witness for one witness on each side would be a good idea. No one should agree to one side being allowed to call more witnesses than the other side.
So what is Bolton's motive for stating he would happy to testify? And why inject himself into the Senate rather than the House proceedings? He never presented himself as a never-Trumper that I know of. Why the present silence? Book sales (money) is the most obvious answer. Being the central figure in the Senate trial has gotta help sales. My guess is the book is more along the lines of Trump making mistakes because he doesn't agree with me than being particularly damaging re Ukraine, but he's making hay while he can. But...He could be out for revenge for getting rejected, then again he's been fired before. It could be he thinks Trump is uniquely dangerous and he has a patriotic duty to the country, in which case his book had better hew closely to that line, and why the silence? Or the book could be about his view about foriegn policy and what Trump is doing wrong, and the Dem media or leaker is twisting what they know. The last is what I think, and Bolton is just taking advantage of it to bolster sales. But he's taking a chance that coming to the Senate with a nothingburger before publication would kill sales. He needs publication while the trial is ongoing and he has yet to testify to maximize sales. If I'm right he will find a way to delay testifying until after publication. But the review process puts the timing of publication in government hands. Or it could be that he's happier than a pig in feces being such a central figure.
Thats my twisted logic, holes and all, take on it. It's hard to square the circle on Bolton volunteering and his subsequent silence. The book hype coinciding with the timing of Impeachment is more than coincidental imo. And Epstien didn't kill himself.
Adam Schiff just no does a brilliant counter hypothetical to Dershowitz and even manages to work Mitt Romney into it.
I’m sorry. I gotta stop. I’m turning this page into an impeachment question time liveblog.
I am sorry, Althous. I hope you are watching, or listening, and share your thoughts later on.
“Uh, oh!! Inga was honest enough to provide quotation marks for her copies and pastes comment at 1:20, but Chuck’s exact same verbiage at 12:58 lacks any such punctuation.”
I was directly quoting Chuck, not any publication. I have no idea where he got his comments from or if he was quoting some publication or not.
"To suggest that they don’t is just silly. One witness for one witness on each side would be a good idea.”
Well they had every opportunity to call witnesses the Republicans wanted and chose not to, and here you are trying to keep a cap on it yourself. All relevant witnesses, and the defense gets to decide what is relevant to the defense, or go with what the House did. Democrats could have had Bolton already, but in the words of Shumer, a deal that included Republican witnesses was “off the table.”
Keep spinning though.
Why did Schumer reject a deal that could have included Bolton that the Rs had put on the table?
Good Democrats never look into the memory hole. That stuff was thrown there for a reason! But this was just a short time ago.
The objection has never really been about no witnesses, it’s always been about there only being Democrat witnesses, as happened in the House.
The issue should be no NEW witnesses. I have no idea why republicans aren't hammering this point.
To call NEW witnesses expands an investigation that is already complete. The House admits no NEW witnesses are needed by virtue they impeached Trump on the witnesses they already had.
the same voters that are not allowed to know ciaramella's name, (what is that like Beetlejuice) who have not been informed of the abuse of the complaint process, who are only told the fisa warrants were fraudulent in passing, who nbc abc and cbs decided pam bondi's testimony wasn't worth broadcasting, they aren't merely ignorant they are criminally misinformed,
’No one should agree to one side being allowed to call more witnesses than the other side.’
I agree!! The Dems got seventeen witnesses in the House* and the Reps got zero. So, the defense gets to call seventeen witnesses to make it even, and then a one-for-one trade.
*eighteen if you include the hidden testimony of IC IG Atkinson.
The Democrats blew it with the “completely absent” thing. Proving a negative is all but impossible outside of mathematics and simple cases.
"The five minutes that Schiff had were a savage takedown of the Trump Tweet."
Chuck, you are a lawyer, right? If so, then you would know that Schiff's subpoenas were garbage at the time they were issued since the whole of the House did not vote to authorize Schiff's committee to empower it to issue judicially enforceable subpoenas. That is why Schiff never went to court to get them enforced since he knew they were worthless.
Its nice to see lefty teammates LLR-lefty Chuck and Admiral Inga working so well together in advancing the nonsensical and outright BS narratives of the left.
Very instructive really.
When I read the NYTimes story the other day (strangely not behind a paywall for once /sarc), it was clear to me that his testimony wasn't going to help the Democrats in any way other than as a way to draw out the trial. All Bolton had was his assertion that Trump preferred to keep the hold on the aid until the Ukrainians did something about the 2016 corruption involving that year's election with the following weasily description that this desire "included" the Bidens (something that Althouse picked up on immediately).
Had the aid not been released, this story might have mattered; but since the aid was released and the Ukrainians didn't do anything to get it released (they didn't even know until shortly before it was released that it had ever been on hold), then Bolton's testimony adds nothing substantial- the Senate will still vote along party lines to acquit. Schumer's calculation is whether or not extending the trial for 2-3 weeks is worth allowing the Trump defense to depose Ciaramella, Schiff's staff, Schiff himself, and the Bidens. My guess is that Schumer won't think it worth it. Better from Schumer's view is going to be the Senate calling no witnesses, but I think McConnell may well force Schumer to vote against an actual list that includes Bolton and Mulvaney by including all those witnesses the Democrats don't want called. It is what I would do in McConnell's place- I wouldn't give Schumer the ammo to plausibly claim a coverup. However, I am bit biased here- I want the witnesses for both sides deposed with cross examination that isn't blocked by Schiff- I would go so far as to recall the witnesses that did appear in the House- I think most them lied in one way or another, but the cross examination was polluted by Schiff's interference at pretty much every important question.
’I was directly quoting Chuck, not any publication. I have no idea where he got his comments from or if he was quoting some publication or not.’
Damn. I only had about two hours of sleep last night and I totally missed the mark there, Inga. And that’s not an excuse - I sincerely apologize to you and Chuck.
We are not allowed to know Ciaramella’s name because if we did know Eric Ciaramella’s name, or saw any of those many pictures posted of him with Democrat politicians, his life might be in danger. Therefore we are protecting his identity. Schiff has said he doesn’t know who the Whistleblower is, so I think they should just call Eric Ciaramella, since his has been connected in emails and the White House visitor’s log to the Ukrainian politician who released the “secret ledger” to decapitate the Trump campaign.
Thanks God, BTW, that it led to Kelly Anne Conway getting the job and leading the team to victory.
cubanbob: "That is why Schiff never went to court to get them enforced since he knew they were worthless."
LLR-lefty Chuck knows that very well.
Perfectly well. But the dems need their lies amplified and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why LLR-lefty Chuck is here.
Eric Ciaramella also met with Shokin’s deputies in the WH where they were told that Shokin had to go, presumably for the same reason Trump has to go, because he wouldn’t play ball.
Yancey Ward: "When I read the NYTimes story the other day (strangely not behind a paywall for once /sarc), it was clear to me that his testimony wasn't going to help the Democrats in any way other than as a way to draw out the trial."
Correct.
And that's why the dems are parading the hilariously blown-up Lev Parnas around DC today. If they could, the dems would drag Avenatti and Cohen out of prison and have them marching about the Capital building!!!
Per Senate rules, Schumer would likely refuse unanimous consent to advance such a list of witnesses designed to get Democrats to vote no, but the effect would be the same.
"uch a list of witnesses designed to get Democrats to vote no, but the effect would be the same.”
But I thought that the Democrats want all the witnesses to get to the bottom of it.
@Milwaukie guy:
Libya beats Iraq.
How many US troops are in Libya?
That's quite an impressive witness the democrats have in Lev Parnas. A guy who can't get into the hearing room because he's wearing a gps ankle bracelet. Why would he lie? What does he have to gain. :-p
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480423-parnas-unable-to-attend-senate-impeachment-trial-due-to-ankle-bracelet
See my comment at 1:26 J Farmer.
Aunty, they are lying, of course.
I just want to clarify that last comment I wrote. McConnell can bring to the Senate discussion any list of witnesses he wants. To get an actual vote on the list requires either unanimous consent (no one objects), or an actual procedural vote, if there is an objection, (and this procedural vote can be filibustered, too) to bring the list to the floor for an actual up and down vote- I think I have all of this right, but am not 100% sure about how the trial rules might effect this now- I am going off of normal Senate rules.
Schumer and his party would fight the procedural vote if they think no witnesses are better than a combined list for both sides. Schumer might not filibuster, but instead direct some of his caucus to vote down the procedural vote, and then find the nearest camera to claim the Republicans were rigging the list with non-relevant witnesses- just like he has been doing the last 2 weeks.
Yancey Ward;
?
The House issued dozens if not hundreds of subpoenas for many thousands of documents and many, many witnesses.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/trumps-defense-against-subpoenas/605635/
And as noted in that terrific Atlantic essay, several executive branch senior staff did testify, pursuant to subpoenas, and in defiance of dubious White House instructions to not testify.
Aunty, they are lying, of course.
I just want to clarify that last comment I wrote. McConnell can bring to the Senate discussion any list of witnesses he wants. To get an actual vote on the list requires either unanimous consent (no one objects), or an actual procedural vote, if there is an objection, (and this procedural vote can be filibustered, too) to bring the list to the floor for an actual up and down vote- I think I have all of this right, but am not 100% sure about how the trial rules might effect this now- I am going off of normal Senate rules.
Schumer and his party would fight the procedural vote if they think no witnesses are better than a combined list for both sides. Schumer might not filibuster, but instead direct some of his caucus to vote down the procedural vote, and then find the nearest camera to claim the Republicans were rigging the list with non-relevant witnesses- just like he has been doing the last 2 weeks.
as josh hammer puts it:
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt are literally now more pro-Israel than the Democratic Party. (they seem to be with team Qatar, team turkey and team iran)
No, Chuck, they issued requests, not subpoenae. You can keep it up citing left leaning news people, but the fact remains that these were no subpoenae- we know this because the House didn't try to enforce any of the requests.
As I pointed out- Trump could have gone to court to block all of the witnesses that did appear- but he didn't. I asked you to think about it, but you are so damned clueless that it didn't register.
Speaking of snakes... http://patterico.com/2020/01/29/impeachment-what-comes-next/
And, Chuck, you would know all of this if you listened to/read the defense's arguments during the trial. Even Kupperman could have appeared before the House- no one told him not to do so- he just wanted the court to issue a decision that covered his ass both ways. Most of the witnesses didn't care enough to bother with this.
And to correct one mistake someone made above- Kupperman didn't receive a subpoena either- he also got a request letter, but when he went to court to see if it was enforceable as a subpoena, the House committee immediately withdrew the request.
Everything Schiff's committee did was designed to avoid the federal courts- this isn't behavior you do while issuing subpoenae- if you are issuing subpoenae, you go to court to defend them, not withdraw them immediately.
"several executive branch senior staff did testify, pursuant to subpoenas, and in defiance of dubious White House instructions to not testify.”
Yes, the deep state has little truck with the courts or due process when they have an election to overthrow. I am not sure why Chuck pretends to care about all of these. judicial appointments when he obviously thinks that the courts are nothing more than a potted plant in disagreements between branches of government. Seems like he would want Democrat appointed judges.
I am starting to think that Chuck is not really a lawyer. Or is a lawfare type here under some kind of deep cover.... Naah! He’s just simple minded probably. That’s the most charitable explanation.
this looks like really bad drama,
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1222582628177661954
Again, Chuck, the letters were requests even for the documents (just go read one of them- they can be found in multiple locations online). The White House refused on documents for the most part, but the House didn't go to court because they hadn't issued subpoenae.
How hard is this for you to understand? You claim to be a lawyer, and I verified that claim once a couple of years ago when I figured out who you really are, so I don't get it- are you just a bad lawyer, or just dishonest?
I bet very few Trumpists are watching today.
Some of us haven't watched a single minute of this shitshow.
And don't plan to.
Aunty trump: "am not sure why Chuck pretends to care about all of these. judicial appointments when he obviously thinks that the courts are nothing more than a potted plant in disagreements between branches of government. Seems like he would want Democrat appointed judges."
LLR-lefty Chuck knew early on that if he was going to have any credibility as a "lifelong republican" and "principled conservative" who just, gosh darn it, can't support this Trump fellow and attack any and every actual conservative who pushes back against the dems, then he had to pick at least one issue to play "true conservative" on, even though he commentary would inevitably cut against conservative policy.
Judges was the area LLR-lefty Chuck decided to rest his FakeCon credentials upon.
This is clear by the fact that LLR-lefty Chuck absolutely adores the marxist legal theories of the Lawfare crew and Chuck has supported every lunatic lefty District Judge issuing nationwide injunctions against any and all conservative policies Trump has put forth.
Your observation Aunty Trump that it seems as though, given all his comments and clear preferences, that LLR-lefty Chuck would seem to prefer leftist activist judges who undermine our Constitution is spot on!
There is a reason for that: LLR-lefty Chuck does indeed support positions and policies that would empower lefty activist judges in their destruction of our Constitution.
And he's done it on every single issue for the last 4 years.
Every single one.
you want gloves to handle that:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/29/lev-parnas-phone-sex-porn/
If the Senate calls Bolton and Mulvaney, Trump won't invoke executive privilege for them either, just like he hasn't invoked it on any of the witnesses who did testify.
so who will judge what is misinformation
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1222562573696098308?s=20
Post a Comment