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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 289 of 289Another dud
https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1221860500440526848
Browndog: "Ken Starr would be much more exciting if he could tell us what other people were thinking, like the dems."
Admiral Inga has been reading minds for years. Thats how she knew Carter Page was a russian spy and Kavanaugh led a rape gang for decades.
Why dont the dems call her?
The MSM accuses President Trump of being a "reality TV star," but conduct their own businesses like grocery-store checkout-line pop-culture magazines, right down to the sound-bitten content and sensational headlines. Sensible people ignore "People." Sensible people ignore CNN. Tomaytoe, tomahtoe.
Already jumping out of the way
https://mobile.twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221835366090625024
This is fun. I have a name to add to the Republicans’ list of witnesses: IC IG Michael Atkinson.
Schiff, House Democrats Conceal Testimony Of 18th Witness From Trump Team
Rep. Adam B. Schiff and his fellow colleagues on the House impeachment management team spent nearly 24 hours last week repeatedly hyping the testimony from 17 witnesses interviewed during the House’s impeachment inquiry.
But they seem to have forgotten all about the testimony from an 18th witness.
Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general, delivered 179-pages worth of testimony before House investigators. Atkinson, it turns out, has direct knowledge of the origins of a complaint from a whistleblower that kicked off the whole impeachment probe.
While Schiff and his colleagues talk openly about the testimony of the 17 witnesses, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who interviewed Atkinson are not permitted to talk about the IG’s testimony.
But Republicans on that committee say his testimony should see the light of day.
“The reason it hasn’t been released is it’s not helpful to Adam Schiff. It is not helpful to the whistleblower,” said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX). And Ratcliffe knows: he is among the lawmakers who attended the October interview of Atkinson. “It raises credibility issues about both of them.”
Schiff, Ratcliffe said, “is trying to bury that transcript.”
...
Atkinson’s interview before House lawmakers covered the origins of the whistleblower complaint that led to the two articles of impeachment, the Washington Times reported. “Mr. Trump’s supporters charge that the whistleblower was part of a scheme to take down the president and that the complaint was coordinated by Mr. Schiff, chairman of the intelligence committee and the lead House impeachment manager prosecuting the case.”
“Mr. Schiff denies he had contact with the whistleblower, but it was later revealed that his staff met with the whistleblower before the complaint was filed with Mr. Atkinson. The whistleblower is said to be a CIA analyst assigned to the White House who has ties to the Democratic Party and Mr. Biden.
Mr. Atkinson met with Mr. Schiff and his committee in October to discuss the whistleblower complaint in detail. House and Senate members were first briefed about the complaint when news of the whistleblower became public in September.
But the closed-door committee session remains a focus of House Republicans with knowledge of the interview.”
Again, after the Bolton "bombshell" (marketing ploy) goes the way every single other hoax "bombshell" has gone, what will be the next hoax impeachment basis?
I predicted there would be 1 more prior to the election with another immediately following Trump's reelection.
If you want a vision of the modern Democrat Party, imagine a boot trying to stamp on Trump's face but missing - forever.
How can they continue to hold Atkinson's testimony, Bruce? It relates to the genesis of the impeachment and should be released. I’ve heard claims from some of the Reps on the committee that it’s exculpatory. Shameful.
Give Schiff a Side-show Bob wig and a yard full of rakes.
Blogger Beasts of England said...
’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?
They have very little to say about hearsay, if that is what you are driving at. You’re not a lawyer, are you? The Federal Rules of Evidence address hearsay problems. What counts as hearsay; what is the hearsay rule, what are the exceptions to the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to the exceptions. The formulation of your question tells me that you have no clue about any of that. And because I have spent a great deal of my time learning the subject, and you haven’t, and because I don’t like you and don’t respect you and don’t otherwise care much about you, I am not going to offer you a free tutorial.
Others have published on the subject of hearsay issues in the impeachment trial of Trump, and you cane read them.
Just Security (anti-Trump conservatives):
https://www.justsecurity.org/68244/hearsay-and-the-impeachment-trial/
Lawfare:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/go-ahead-apply-federal-rules-evidence-senate-impeachment-trial
And lawprof David Alan Sklansky of Stanford:
https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/02/evidence-law-and-the-impeachment-inquiry/
The Republicans should not vote on witnesses until they have heard all the testimony taken so far.
That is, until the IG's testimony has been turned over and made public.
If the Dems refuse to do so, a vote to acquit can include the denying the President due process.
Thanks for those awesome links, Chuck!! So, you agree that Schiff can do the interrogatories? No need for outside counsel...
Beasts of England said...How can they continue to hold Atkinson's testimony, Bruce?
--
Trump releases call transcript, House Dems withhold Atkinson's.
Now where exactly is the so-called "coverup"?
I'm kinda with Lindsay Graham on this: provide him a copy of the relevant pages of the manuscript. I'm pretty sure this is just another bullshit democrat stunt a la Christine Blasey Ford, and I think that's a pretty solid way to see if there's anything there worth talking about.
House refuses to properly pursue desired witnesses, decides to withhold whistleblower testimony.
Claims "obstruction".
“This is fun. I have a name to add to the Republicans’ list of witnesses: IC IG Michael Atkinson.”
Part of this being fun is that the Republicans can achieve with one witness what I was thinking that they could do with two witnesses: the Whistleblower and Schifty, plus obviate the necessity of calling one of the lead House impeachment managers as a fact witness. IC IG Atkinson sat between the two of them. And how do the Democrats claim, with a straight face, that they need Bolton (whom they never bothered to subpoena) as a witness, to make their case, but the Republicans can’t see the testimony of Atkinson, the 18th witness interviewed under oath, by Schifty’s HPSCI? What is Schifty hiding? (We actually know what Schifty is hiding - his own staff working with the “whistleblower” to set up the impeachment). Why do the Democrats get to depose Bolton to bolster their case, and the President’s attorneys don’t get to depose Atkinson to bolster their case? The Republicans know what Atkinson said, because Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) was there at the interview, and is now on Trump’s defense team. But they can’t get that information into the record because Schifty classified it.
Something like 60-75% of Americans believe that this trial should have witnesses.
Which doesn't specify which witnesses. Republicans ought to be able to have witnesses because they were basically denied them in the House joke of a hearing. Democrats had their chance in the House. Even so, Republicans offered Bolton as a witness provided they could call the witnesses they wanted, and the Democrats refused. So tough shit.
’But they can’t get that information into the record because Schifty classified it.’
I doubt there’s any national security reason behind that classification. Furthermore, specific words or lines could be redacted to make the remainder unclassified. Entire documents of this nature are not classified - only very specific elements. And yes, I’ve held the highest clearances and intelligence caveats. Based upon other released documents, it is likely SECRET//NOFORN. Easy to remedy and release the crux of the testimony.
Responding to every troll is like peeing in your pants, for a second or two, it gives you a nice warm feeling, but soon it gets cold and stinks.
who is lawfare, it's jack goldsmith's whose capricious nature re olc directives, put the liberty of interrogators in legal jeopardy, his renfield is ben 'tick tock' wittes, who's been blowing kisses to lisa page, in the last few weeks,
Blogger Beasts of England said...
Thanks for those awesome links, Chuck!! So, you agree that Schiff can do the interrogatories? No need for outside counsel...
?
Anybody can do interrogatories. They usually get drafted and reviewed, sometimes by multiple sets of eyes. I didn’t think that they were doing interrogatories, for either written or oral answers (FRCP I think allows for both) in any impeachment proceedings; we use both in Michigan civil litigation.
Or are you using the wrong words for the conduct of depositions?
My reason for suggesting “counsel” is because the House Intel and Judiciary Committee Democrats have hired some stone killer former federal prosecutors and senior civil litigatiors, and those are the guys I want to see turned loose on Trump.
I’ve read all or parts of three transcripts of Trump giving testimony under oath in past cases. He is a spectacularly terrible witness.
It sounds like if Graham is offering to hear Bolton in exchange for witnesses Trump wants to call, it’s just the same deal that Schumer said was “off the table” earlier this month. So really nothing has changed.
it's also probably how the Wuhan flu spread, oh the brits can't track 1400 some nationals from china, they are asking they stay in place,
@Chuck - your first article made some good points, but it also made some incredible ones. For example, that Ambassador Sondland might be a coconspirator with Trump. You just have to read or listen to his House testimony to see how absurd that is. The second cite is to a Lawfare article, and they are the ones who set up the entire impeachment process in 5he first place, including getting the “whistleblower” to send his complaint to Schiff and his HPSCI, which didn’t have jurisdiction, got IC OIG to rewrite the complaint form to allow hearsay, and very likely wrote much of the complaint themselves, or at least assisted other Schifty staff who did so. My view on Lawfare is that you can tell when they are lying, by when their lips are moving. Finally, the third article didn’t, apparently, mention Hearsay or FRE, and the only mentions of Evidence that I found were high level, and had nothing to do with rules of evidence. I will give you maybe a 0.4 out of 3 score on the applicability of your cites.
Ok, in order to believe and accept as true the latest leak of what John Bolton supposedly would say about this whole Ukraine quid pro quo matter, Trump, Pence, Zelensky, Zelensky's Foreign Minister, and the written transcript (authored by four people that listened to the call, IIRC) would all have to be wrong or lying.
’My reason for suggesting “counsel” is because the House Intel and Judiciary Committee Democrats have hired some stone killer former federal prosecutors and senior civil litigatiors, and those are the guys I want to see turned loose on Trump.’
I kinda figured that, Chuck. So, uh, good luck to Mr. Schiff!
(Sorry that I don’t know the precise legal terminology, but apparently it’s close enough to convey the meaning.)
I don't have a problem with deposing John Bolton.
However, the Executive Privilege claim needs to be adjudicated through the courts. Trump would do a disservice to all future Presidents if he just gave into such demands from the legislative branch.
Remember Separation of Powers?
LLR-lefty Chuck: "He is a spectacularly terrible witness."
He is a spectacularly effective conservative President.
Which is why he will be reelected.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1221877115391553538
How long until the dems/LLR-lefties turn from accusations of assassinations against Trump to his responsibility for the coronavirus?
I'll give it a day, i'm not kidding,
Fox News reports that Romney supports introducing testimony from Bolton and Collins seems to agree.
“who is lawfare, it's jack goldsmith's whose capricious nature re olc directives, put the liberty of interrogators in legal jeopardy, his renfield is ben 'tick tock' wittes, who's been blowing kisses to lisa page, in the last few weeks”.
Mention of Wittes reminds me of their radical reinterpretation of the Obstruction statute that kept the Mueller investigation open for better than a year after they had determined that there had been no collusion between Trump or his campaign and the Russian government. That very much appears to have been the result of a collaboration between Wittes and Weismann, Mueller’s lead prosecutor (who we all remember was present at what supposed to have been Crooked Hillary’s victory celebration). Their radical Obstruction of Justice statute was used to keep their investigation, and Congress from investigating anything too closely related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation - which we now have found, thanks to DOG IG Horowitz, had highly questionable predication. But Congress couldn’t look into that because that would interfere with Mueller’s investigation, and thus be Obstruction of Justice. Similarly, their own investigation was sacrosanct, even from a Presidential order due to this intentional statutory misinterpretation. A misinterpretation never adopted, or tested, by any court, and specifically rejected by the AG, DAG, and OLC. Yes, that Benjamin Wittes.
The Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford play all over again. I'm okay with Bolton testifying, doubt there will be anything truly damning or damaging in what he says. Does anyone assert that he has an email, or memo, or recorded conversation proving anything untoward about the president vis-a-vis Ukraine? Not that I've heard.
Trump should object on executive privilege grounds, push it through the courts, and slow down the impeachment proceeding. Also ask for other witnesses. Doesn't hurt anyone but Sanders and Warren to do that.
I thought Pat Cipollone told the world that Republicans were barred from the SCIF? You mean they were there, asking questions of Atkinson and they know what is in the transcript?
Just kidding. Of course they do. Pat Cipollone was lying through his teeth because it sounded good and apparently Trump likes hearing it.
As for why that transcript would be non-public, I think it is because there is a legal duty upon anyone having access to a federal whistleblower’s information, that the whistleblower’s confidentiality be maintained.
The ICIG, Michael Atkinson, has been nominated by Trump to hold that position just two years ago. And Trump’s own-nominated DNI, Joseph Macguire, has testified that he thinks the whistleblower “did the right thing” and has been handled properly.
If this is a ‘deep state’ at work, Trump chose most of them.
’...that the whistleblower’s confidentiality be maintained.’
It doesn’t take a lot of black ink to redact ‘Eric Ciaramella’. And please, show me the verbiage from a statute that requires confidentiality of the so-called whistleblower.
"Tell you what, people; let’s just sit Mr. Bolton down... [etc.]".
Be careful what you wish for...
Does anyone assert that he has an email, or memo, or recorded conversation proving anything untoward about the president vis-a-vis Ukraine?
Even if he had said "Hold up the aid until they investigate Biden," it wouldn't be a crime. Biden needed investigatin'. And that's not shifting goalposts, we've been saying that from the outset of this ludicrous process. The only goalpost-shifting is by the Ds, who keep coming up with new "crimes," once the old ones are dismissed.
’Biden needed investigatin'.’
I didn’t know you were a Southerner, James K... :)
C'mon Man! No one says there was anything wrong with Biden Inc.
No joke!
LLR-lefty Chuck: "If this is a ‘deep state’ at work, Trump chose most of them."
Oh, so we have cycled back to the lefty claim that there is no "deep state", which was followed by the Dems/LLR-lefty assertions that not only was there a deep state but we should all be thankful that the deep state exists to protect us from OrangeManBad.
This is similar to LLR-lefty Chuck's alternating Trump-was-not-spied-upon-by-obama vs of-course-Trump-was-spied-upon-by-obama-and-he--deserved-it gambits.
All depending on what dems need to advance their narratives on that particular day of course.
Just call Obama!
Oh..there was a meeting about those concerns..but...
"What counts as hearsay; what is the hearsay rule, what are the exceptions to the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to the exceptions"
Schiff is going with the REO exception -- "I heard it from a Dem who heard it from a Dem who heard it from another Trump's colluding around".
This is all so tedious, and seems so trivial.
This is like the boy who cried wolf--every few hours, every day, forever.
There appears to be real panic on the left/LLR-left that there is real public momentum behind the idea the clear corruption of the many Bidens should be ferreted out.
And, given the astonishing weakness of the democrat field and desperate faith of the establishment that Biden is their only real hope, well. Its easy to understand what our dems/LLR's are up to.
If they keep Bernie tied up in Washington with impeachment for the next couple of weeks will Jolten Joe Biden be able to squeak out a win in Iowa?
Drago: They'll have to get the ferret out of Richard Gere before they can go after the Bidens.
Trump can want say any damn thing he wants to his aides. The offense being alleged is that he extorted Ukraine. What I'm hearing is that Bolton says in his book that Trump wanted to extort Ukraine. Not the same thing. All of the witnesses that the dems called said that he never actually extorted Ukraine. So did the Ukrainians. This is all bullshit.
<
"Presidents must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them. A book by a former national security adviser ahead of a president’s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters.
This is why executive privilege exists: to allow the president and other senior officials to keep certain communications and internal deliberations private if disclosing them would disrupt the functions or decision-making processes of the executive branch.
I haven’t seen Bolton’s book manuscript and I don’t know what’s in it. I take Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times. But I believe they are still responsible for this leak since Bolton’s explosive book was sent to the leak-prone National Security Council for a security review in December 2019 so the book could be published in the spring of 2020. It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process. Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain.
If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all, this should happen after the election, not in the spring of 2020. I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country. There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election."
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ambassador-bolton-withdraw-your-book-fred-fleitz
Howard: "Drago: They'll have to get the ferret out of Richard Gere before they can go after the Bidens."
Too easy.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Just so it's clear, a certain racist fopdoodle has lied about what Cipollone claims.
Cipollone claims counsel for the president was barred. He also claims Republicans were barred and/or blocked from asking questions. HPSCI Chairman Schitt would not allow questions he didn't like. And it is that to which Cipollone objects.
A certain racist fopdoodle must misrepresent the claim in order to deny the basic truth get a fair hearing.
FIGHT ME, BRO!
’FIGHT ME, BRO!’
I noticed that sooper lawyer and noted pugilist hasn’t been able to provide the statutory language requiring the identity of the so-called whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to remain confidential.
stevew: "If they keep Bernie tied up in Washington with impeachment for the next couple of weeks will Jolten Joe Biden be able to squeak out a win in Iowa?"
Will Dementia Joe even know he is IN Iowa?
Listening to Democrat Tom Carper trying to quote the Bible is like reading LLR-lefty Chuck trying to relate conservative political philosophy and policies.
You can just tell its a foreign language to them both.
carper. noun. A person who finds fault, often severely and willfully: caviler, critic, criticizer, faultfinder, hypercritic, niggler, nitpicker, quibbler.
Btw, with Gorsuch's blistering rebuke of activist leftist judges issuing nationwide injunctions, stand by for LLR-lefty Chuck's opinion of Gorsuch to rapidly "evolve" into disappointment in him.
Similar to LLR-lefty Chuck's "surprise" evolution to opposition of ALL conservatives that push back against dems.
Kavanaugh is no doubt next on that list.
Uh, oh. Schiff has already moved past Bolton’s manuscript and is now discussing his notes and working papers. Can’t the proggies have a ‘bombshell’ that last for more than a day?
Beasts: "Can’t the proggies have a ‘bombshell’ that last for more than a day?"
Nope.
The Full Lifecycle of a dem/lefty/LLR-lefty hoax/lie is now about 12 to 18 hours.
Nice to see Bruce Hayden and Chuck in the same thread. Quite a contrast.
Ya gots your bus stop bench divorce lawyer and the real deal to compare and contrast. Sweet!
Unless I missed it, no comment from Chucky directed at Mr. Hayden.
Unless I missed it, no comment from Chucky directed at Mr. Hayden.
Don't give him any ideas.
I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country
Swamp Rule # 12345. I am so disappointed in Bolton.
Inga said...
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.
Remember what Inga is bleating about here:
1. She claims Trump tried to force Ukraine to investigate Biden's obvious corruption.
2. She claims he withheld critical aid to Ukraine.
- Aid Obama refused to ever send.
- Aid that many of the House managers trying to impeach Trump voted against ever sending.
- Aid was planned resupply for materials currently in stock.
Inga is a completely amoral piece of shit. So is ARM.
The fact that you all are still trying to argue with them is the problem. They have proven over the last 3 years that they will run with any lie and ignore any criminality on the part of the deep state they have to because they hate you so much.
If Inga and ARM get their way they are going to be first in line with the Bernie Bro's deciding who goes to the Gulag and the Hodgkinson's that just dispense with the formalities.
After they pass gun control and take our guns of course.
For our own safety.
Howard said...
Drago: They'll have to get the ferret out of Richard Gere before they can go after the Bidens.
Gerbil. Well known in some circles. A former associate of mine who trained at Cedars swore he saw the x-ray.
Maybe a ferret was after the gerbil.
POTUS has ultimate classification authority in government. The hidden IG testimony? President Donald John Trump can order it be handed over to the Senate for review. Going to be really tough for even an Obama loyalist judge to say "No, you can't do that. It will hurt national security." The supposed reason for the classification.
And if Pelosi tries to say the House can hold trial testimony secret from the Senate, and the executive and judicial branch, 2020 will be a wave election washing away Democrats.
Gospace:
Not so. Separation of powers means Congress has legal classification authority. However, the Executive could ask the Judiciary to overcome the classification. That is exactly the process the House chose not to pursue.
’POTUS has ultimate classification authority in government.’
That’s certainly true for the executive branch, although I don’t know if that’s been tested via the legislative branch. However, the IG IC is in the executive branch, so Trump can declassify without argument.
"the country, a key American ally"
Of course, the Dem accusations are BS, and the NYT always writes in bad faith, but still --
What are we to make, progs, of the fact that the O administration stiffed the Ukrainians on material defense aid and allowed Russia to cut off a chunk of Ukraine's territory? Is that the sort of thing one does to and for a "key ally"?
It is still a mystery, despite Bolton’s bullshit, how it is possible to have quid pro quo without mutual consent or to seek quid pro quo without communicating a conditional request.
As for Bolton: He’s a disgruntled employee. If Trump let’s him testify, he will be embarrassed.
Gerbil... thanks Doc. I always get my marsupials mixed up.
Jesus fucking Christ. Even if the times's version is word for word exactly true it’s still nothing. What Trump wants or would prefer ... that’s it, what Trump says he *wants*. What did he *do* is the issue. We all have wishes. I have some for Adam Schiff. So what.
Blogger Beasts of England said...
’...
I noticed that sooper lawyer and noted pugilist hasn’t been able to provide the statutory language requiring the identity of the so-called whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to remain confidential.
Hey have I mentioned to you lately how much I dislike you and how much I disrespect you?
You trash talk me mentioning that person’s name? And ask me to do some legal research for you?
Now you suggest that I haven’t given you any “statutory authority.” Where did I promise you, or where did I rely on, “statutory authority.” Look at my comments on these pages. Where did I mention any statutory authority?
In fact, there is some extremely complicated statutory authority surrounding the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which was a pet project of Rep. Porter Goss, who later served as Director of Central Intelligence. And the general notion behind that law is to give IC whistleblowers a clear direct avenue TO REPORT TO CONGRESS, as opposed to the media or a qui tam lawsuit or other remedy.
And of course that is exactly what happened here, by the book, as confirmed by a Trump-nominated ICIG and a Trump-nominated DNI.
There are upwards of s half-dozen other statutes, funding acts, executive orders and other federal regulations that attempt to protect whistleblowers who properly report matters of urgent concern to Congressional Intel committees. And the strict statutory rules are more general than specific, probably because everyone was concerned about Whistle-Blowers being discriminated against in the claustrophobic world of national intelligence. And nobody dreamed of a partisan jackass like Rep. John Ratcliffe, who would expose a whistleblower as a matter of partisan political revenge.
Ignore Chuck. Like his wife in bed.
Blogger Ken B said...
Jesus fucking Christ. Even if the times's version is word for word exactly true it’s still nothing. What Trump wants or would prefer ... that’s it, what Trump says he *wants*. What did he *do* is the issue. We all have wishes. I have some for Adam Schiff. So what.
Let’s be damned clear about what Trump did.
Trump personally directed that aid to Ukraine be held up; with a message to the new President there; announce an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens, and if you do things will be great and you’ll get money and arms and a splashy meeting in the Oval Office. And if you don’t, you may get less long-term aid than you could ever have imagined.
And the only time that Trump backed down from that scheme — that “drug deal” — was when (a) advisors told the President that it may be illegal, and (b) when the press got ahold of the story and started asking what the holdup was. And the Administration has no good answer.
Let's be clear that ICIG Atkinson conspired with Eric Ciaramella, who is a John Bolton CIA plant and is not a whistleblower, to start the process by which they accused Trump of no crime because none has happened. The procedures were changed to allow the fake complaint. There was no first hand knowledge. And Adam Schiff May very well have committed felony witness tampering... well if Ciaramella had been a witness instead of a lying Deep State bitch.
A racist fopdoodle then - very oddly indeed - quotes a black woman with her "by the book" lie, written on her way out the door of the White House. That woman was neck deep in the conspiracy to deprive American citizens' constitutional rights (admitted in part, already, by the Department of Justice) by illegally spying in contravention of the protections recognized in the Fourth Amendment. Those "tapps" were illegally sought and obtained through lies to the FISC.
"By the book" is what is known as a tell, you lying shit stain.
Further, the non-whistleblowing CIA cunt was outed by his co-conspirator, Adam Schitt. Your lies about Rep Ratcliffe are noted. And that would represent libel because you asserted a fact that is demonstrably false. Dumb ass.
FIGHT me, bro.
Let's be clear about what President Trump did. He noticed obvious corruption in the prior administration - which illegally surveilled his campaign, his transition team, and his presidential administration - and Trump decided he didn't care much for it. He knew people could tell how the money Hunter Biden was getting would be corrupt. So he brought it up to the leader of a country in which the corruption happened.
Trump then trusted the American people to trust their own lying eyes instead of the MSM charlatans and paid back DNC lawyers pretending to be life long something-or-cunty-other-thing over how unqualified Hunter Biden is. And the American people are not fools so they see what Biden rigged for his son while point man on Ukraine. And they know it's dirty AF.
And the whole fucking swap is mad that perhaps the sinecures they believed they had available might be disrupted.
And every dickish racist fopdoodle works his way onto message boards to prevaricate because that's just the sort of slimy greaseballs they are.
FIGHT me, bro!
Birkel 11:29 fantastic
“In fact, there is some extremely complicated statutory authority surrounding the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, which was a pet project of Rep. Porter Goss, who later served as Director of Central Intelligence. And the general notion behind that law is to give IC whistleblowers a clear direct avenue TO REPORT TO CONGRESS, as opposed to the media or a qui tam lawsuit or other remedy.”
“And of course that is exactly what happened here, by the book, as confirmed by a Trump-nominated ICIG and a Trump-nominated DNI.“
I apologize in advance, because a lot of this is by memory. But it wasn’t by the book.
Both the DNI and DOJ have determined that sending the “whistleblower” (WB) complaint back to Schifty’s HPSCI was improper. First, the House did not have oversight authority over the phone call, since it involved the President operating at the height of his Article II powers by conducting foreign policy. The involvement of HPSCI was thus unconstitutional and illegal. Moreover none of the agencies legally overseen by HPSCI were involved in the call other than as observers. Based on subject matter, if any committee was appropriate, it was foreign relations, and not intelligence (“HPSCI). Moreover, sending the WB Complaint to HPSCI required that it be determined by the ICIG to have been (I believe the term is) “urgent”. The WB Report did not meet the statutory definition of “urgent”, which means that under the law, it had to go to the DOJ instead.
The key screwup by ICIG Atkinson here was to view jurisdiction over the complaint from the point of where the whistleblower worked, and not where the supposed malfeasance occurred. This was probably not a problem in the past, when IC OIG WB complaints required first hand knowledge, but in this case, very likely in consultation with Atkinson’s former boss, Mary McCord, working for Schifty’s HPSCI, the IC WB Complaint form was modified to allow hearsay information (which, of course, made it unreliable (which became obvious after the President declassified and released the transcript of the call), and thus at least not qualifying as Urgent). In any case, the key here is that while the WB worked for the IC, that was irrelevant as to determining whether the IC IG had legal jurisdiction over the call (he didn’t, because it involved foreign relations, not intelligence, and because Congress had no oversight power over the conduct of the President on the call).
The one thing that the IC IG could have reported, but to the DOJ, and not HPSCI, was that one of its IC employees (probably Lt Col Vindman, but we don’t know, because Schifty classified the 18th interview transcript (of the ICIG), only HPSCI members and staff were present, and it has been kept from the Senate) ) subject to ICIG oversight had illegally disclosed classified information (the contents of the call)to the WB. And of course, since it was classified, the WB also violated the Espionage Act by disclosing the same classified information to Schifty and his HPSCI. And the ICIG did not have the legal power to ignore or bypass the classification because that authority is owned by the President himself, and had never been delegated to any agency or department created by Congress. He was the only one with the power to have authorized the mole to have disclosed it to the WB thence to the ICIG and to Congress (HPSCI) - and hadn’t at that point. Everything else is BS Lawfare type legal cheating and cutting corners.
Did IC IG Atkinson know that he didn’t have the legal authority to do what he did? Ultimately he found out, with both DNI and DOJ telling him that he didn’t. But was that before he had violated various laws? I don’t know the timing there. But I expect that he did. He was McCord’s private attorney when she was the DOJ NSD AAG who oversaw the preparation of the four illegal FISA warrants on Carter Page, then going on to join Lawfare and to work for HPSCI on the impeachment.
“Let's be clear that ICIG Atkinson conspired with Eric Ciaramella, who is a John Bolton CIA plant and is not a whistleblower, to start the process by which they accused Trump of no crime because none has happened. The procedures were changed to allow the fake complaint. There was no first hand knowledge. And Adam Schiff May very well have committed felony witness tampering... well if Ciaramella had been a witness instead of a lying Deep State bitch”
Just a reminder.
A lot of dark money was spent to buy corrupt election officials, and in 2018 to elect a Dem majority in the House. All together well north of $1 billion. The Dem House majority was bought in great part to impeach Trump. Lawfare Group people were brought in immediately (12/18) to help set it up and to tweak the House rules of the new Congress. The plan had been for the Lawfare associated prosecutors in the Mueller Investigation to just pass the information they had off to the House Dems. But they dawdled, the Republicans got AG Barr confirmed, and he shut dow the Mueller investigation before they could manage the pass off to the House. As has always been the case in the past the lead in the planned impeachment was supposed to have been the Judiciary, which had oversight over the DOJ and thus, Mueller. But Judiciary chair Wadler completely beclowned himself in the Mueller hearing (and as he continues to do to this day), and, in desperation, Palsi moved the impeachment over to HPSCI and Schifty (a much brighter lawyer, but with a serious problem telling the truth)
Schifty staffed up for his impeachment investigation by hiring, among others, several Lawfare people, including former DOJ NSD AAG Mary McCord, who had taken over from John Carlin. Between the two of them, they had been the highest ranking people preparing the bogus, and in McCord’s case, illegal, FISA warrant applications on Carter Page. Their Senior Counsel (private attorney) was Michael Atkinson, who the year before had been named IC IG, convenient because the HPSCI had oversight over the IC). Schifty also hired some former NSC CIA types.
The stage was set, with Schifty and his HPSCI staffed and ready to go by maybe June 1, 2019, but nothing impeachable on the horizon. It had to come out of the IC, because that is where the HPSCI had oversight authority. And with the new staff he had brought in, that probably meant involving the CIA or its people assigned to the NSC. For the most part, Trump didn’t have much direct involvement with the IC, but instead, just at the top. The one big exception was the NSC, made much easier because Obama had greatly increased their staffing, adding hundreds to the NSC staff, mostly detailed from elsewhere in the IC, and esp the CIA. In retrospect, Schifty’s target was obvious, having hired several veterans of the CIA who had been detailed to the NSC. Now he needed something that he could plausibly gin up into an impeachment.
Some of the rest is more speculative. A month or so later, Trump had a phone call with the Ukrainian President. Several dozen others were listening in, including the NSC staffers dealing with Ukraine and that part of the world. One of them was native Ukrainian Lt Col Vindman who had a personal interest in Ukrainian relations. He took exception to Trump’s policy towards Ukraine and its new corruption fighting President. Some have suggested that it may have been because one of his (numerous) brothers was back in Ukraine up to his eyeballs in the corruption. In any case, it seems that he grumbled, mentioned it to the WB, who mentioned it to his CIA/NSC buddies now working for Schifty. They appear to have worked with him to write his WB complaint, while McCord was probably working with her former Senior Counsel ICIG Atkinson, to revise the WB form to allow hearsay, and then to bend the IC whistleblower laws to get the complaint back to the HPSCI.
Point is that there was nothing serendipitous about the whole thing. It was a setup from Day 1.
Yawn...Bolton is like Mitt...jilted lover who fell out of favor with Trump. Interesting that Vindman Frere's group reviews books. Of course, once the trial is over, and Trump is not removed from office, wild-eyed libs will use anything and everything from the book for a second try at Trump.
Chuck: Let’s be damned clear about what Trump did.
So, let's look at what O and Joe did. On a hot mic, O told Medvedev he would have "more flexibility" after 2012 election. Hmmmm...was that a promise to an adversary of the US? It's merely a question.
Joe bragged to the CFR that he got Ukraine to fire their prosecutor by threatening to withhold ONE BEEL-YOWN DOLLARS. Hmmmm...quid pro quo?
TDS is a heckuva thing.
Hey, Chuckles - I know Porter Goss, and am far more knowledgeable of the IC (one of my customers) than you will ever be. I’ve been read-in to codeword (black) programs, had IC handlers, and worked in SCIFs, et cetera.
And in spite of your tangential ramblings, there is no legal protection for Eric Ciaramella, re: his identity being made public.
Briefly for Chuck: I know Porter Goss, the IC is one of my customers, I’ve held the highest clearances, and I know the community better than you ever will. And there’s no legal requirement to shield Eric Ciaramella from public exposure as the whistleblower.
(My detailed reply was crunched by blogger. Ugh)
It's almost like Soros is paying racist fopdoodles to fail, spectacularly, and to cause the exact opposite of what they were paid to do.
It's almost like Soros is paying racist fopdoodles to fail, spectacularly, and to cause the exact opposite of what they were paid to do.
Post a Comment