The President flat out denies it. A spokesman for Bolton is acting upset with the "corrupt nature" in which the secret review was leaked. The spokesman neither confirms or denies that the information is accurate.
Either way, of course, it doesn't matter.
As has been argued (and will be argued over the next two days by the President's team) there has never been an impeachable offense (even if the Democrats could prove everything that they state). There has never been anything illegal about anti-corruption statements, requesting that closed investigations be reopened, or anything else that is being pushed in the impeachment nonsense.
How it will affect things, is that there will likely be enough votes to call Bolton as a witness, which could get very interesting. At this point we have no idea if the NYT is fairly and accurately conveying what they heard. We don't know if the sources are embellishing. We don't know to what degree Bolton is going to confirm any of this. Lastly, even if Bolton confirmed everything, would it just be his word, or would he have anything to back it up? Would he be able to prove that even if Trump made a statement to "him" that he followed through and demanded anything from Ukraine?
At this point, the main facts have not changed. The Ukrainians deny that there was ever any quid pro quo regarding any of this. Trump denies demanding any quid pro quo. Nobody has any direct evidence of any agreement between the countries...
and ultimately the aid was released and none of the supposed demands were met.
107 comments:
The difference is the truth finally gets revealed that trump directed everything Ukraine.....Don't need much other than 100k voters in 3 states to make a difference....Me thinks it will be many more than that as more shit hits the LilScotty fan!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAA!!!! Seems even more amusing that now lil Scotty too has tossed bolton under the bus as a liar!!!!!!
Mitt Romney disagreed with the Scott A**hole.
Mitt Romney told reporters Monday morning that he thinks new revelations from former Trump national security adviser John Bolton will increase the number of Republican senators who will vote in favor of calling at least Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial.
"I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton. Whether there are other witnesses and documents, that’s another matter,” Romney, a Republican senator from Utah, said in the Capitol.
Romney, asked if he was making this comment based on conversations with other senators, said he had “spoken with others who have opined on this as well.”
"I think the story that came out yesterday, it’s increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton,” Romney said.
No problem. Bolton for Biden.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/schumer-calls-on-senate-republicans-to-vote-for-john-bolton-testimony-77633093795
how many "bombshells" are we up to now?
12? 13?
boy, i'll bet ol' pappy mcstain is down there in hell just fuming that he can't be among the pack of turncoat republicans poised to fuck with trump.
this is the beginning of the end.
the walls, they are closing in.
LOL.
Dems don't get bolton for free. Biden testifies too.
Blogger James said...
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/
good ol' MSDNC. i'll bet the reverend al is pissed over that reference to the "Los Angeles Ni@@ers."
imagine if that had happened on fox.
Anonymous Myballs said...
Dems don't get bolton for free. Biden testifies too.
doubtful. whenever things turn really nasty the right number of squish repubs like sasse, collins, romney, murkowski, et. al., always cave and surrender. it happens time after time.
collins is up for re-election so she's turned coat.
mitt's become the biggest fucking asshole in the GOP so you know he's done.
murkowski never WAS a republican, so she's a traitor.
and not one of them has the courage to demand biden in exchange for bolton. not one. they're cowards and traitors.
democrats are the scum of the fucking earth, of this there is no doubt. but they know how to close ranks and stick together.
CH in small print, JAMES IN CAPS
How it will affect things, is that there will likely be enough votes to call Bolton as a witness, which could get very interesting. YEP.
At this point we have no idea if the NYT is fairly and accurately conveying what they heard. SO LET'S FIND OUT (SLFO)
We don't know if the sources are embellishing. SLFO
We don't know to what degree Bolton is going to confirm any of this. SOLFO
Lastly, even if Bolton confirmed everything, would it just be his word, or would he have anything to back it up? SLFO
Would he be able to prove that even if Trump made a statement to "him" that he followed through and demanded anything from Ukraine? SLFO
At this point, the main facts have not changed. The Ukrainians deny that there was ever any quid pro quo regarding any of this. ACTUALLY, THAT HAS CHANGED NOW. WE HAVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID FEEL UNDER PRESSURE AND WERE ABOUT TO COMPLY.
Trump denies demanding any quid pro quo.
BOLTON SAYS HE DID.
Nobody has any direct evidence of any agreement between the countries...
BOLTON IS NOT A DIRECT EVIDENCE WITNESS?
and ultimately the aid was released and none of the supposed demands were met.
AH, YES. BUT WE KNOW WHY.
Poor Ch. You have an unenviable task ahead of you.
The circular butt sniffing Socialist mutts of CHT are fake.
They can not be this stupid.
Friday House Democrats Rests.
Saturday Trump Team Eviscerates Dems
Sunday Miss Hairpen Launches Rumor handed to them By the Two Vidmen Traitor Brothers
CORRECTION:
Nobody has any direct evidence of any agreement between the countries...
BOLTON IS NOT A DIRECT EVIDENCE WITNESS THAT TRUMP LIES WHEN HE SAYS HE DID NOT TRY TO COMPEL A QUID PRO QUO AGREEMENT?
There is a firsthan. The whole defense is based on no direct evidence.
Firsthand
Me in CAPS
JAMES IS FUCKING STUPID
Asking a Queer about Abortion.
"Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg refused to say whether he would be open to language in the Democratic platform that would be more inclusive to pro-lifemembers of the party, during a tense moment at Fox News' town hall Sunday night"
"JAMES IS FUCKING STUPID"
Exactly......
Just like blade ford was first hand vs kavanaugh. Bolton with an axe to grind is not credible.
One reason Crook Nixon got caught is the repeated use of the same criminals that made up the plumbers.
This is like that DNC/Pelosi/Biden/Schiff and a host of others keep using the same leaders and so called reporters.
Bernie is surging in fund raising .
He is leading in Iowa by 9.
The Three Circular Butt Sniffers of CHT
are now Pro Bolton Policies.
Amazing to see their Transformation.
Bolton left the White House a day before Trump ultimately released the Ukraine aid on Sept. 11.
I don't agree with him on his Neo conservatism. But I think that he scares the hell out of the President and his pathological supporters. Ie Scott A**hole
"Let the people decide," Ken Starr just said.
Polls indicate the majority of Americans want Trump to be removed.
Starr is saying it's axiomatic to invoke executive privilege
"to protect privileged conversations and …"
How about to protect a manuscript text written by a witness who was present when the alleged impeachable acts took place, a text the essence of which has somehow become generally available--a witness who says the President DID say and do what the President claims he did NOT say and do.
That fox pill James loves so much used the proportion to size method (states). That means CA and NY were over represented and the red states under.
A Fox pill is not a Fox poll, and why would Fox (known for its strong support for Trump) make such a mistake?
This is being conducted as if Bolton's alleged book statements do not exist. All the more reason to have him appear to testify under oath as a first hand witness to what the President did or did not say and do.
@seanmdav
NYT reporter who peddled Bolton's book spin, which has now been directly contradicted on the record by both Trump and AG Bill Barr, is already starting to back away from Bolton's alleged claims.
@MaggieNYT
Bolton left the White House on terrible terms and was not always seen as a reliable narrator by colleagues. The he said/he said of him versus Trump on tying the aid to investigations is testing that in a pronounced way.
It's not even day 2 yet.
Why doesn't he say "When the House managers realized their case was falling apart, they wrote Bolton's book for him"?
Bolton Revelations Upend Impeachment Trial Strategy
January 27, 2020 at 1:59 pm EST
Playbook:
“After a morning in the Capitol, here’s what we can say for sure: The NYT story about John Bolton’s manuscript has undoubtedly scrambled the impeachment proceedings, leaving the once cocksure Republican Party scratching their collective heads at what comes next. The body language and the rhetoric have changed — but to what end, we’re not certain at this moment.
“Over the weekend, Republicans were quite sure that the impeachment trial of President Trump would be over by this weekend. Now there’s a distinct sense of confusion about when and how this will all end.
“At the moment, Senate GOP leadership sources tell us they are still pushing against witnesses — but they acknowledge the situation is fluid, and say it could change.”
Angus King Sees Up to 10 Republicans Backing Witnesses
January 27, 2020 at 2:12 pm EST
Sen. Angus King (I-ME) told NPR that as many as 10 Republican senators would eventually vote in favor of allowing new witnesses during President Trump’s impeachment trial.
Seems Bolton was the only one in the room who heard the president wanting to investigate Biden.
A leak to the NYT for a book that comes out the very night before the "pre-order" of the book goes live?
Now we are hearing that the source is likely not actually anyone from the NSC, but rather a "go-between" from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's brother (who is part of the NSC) to NYT and WaPo.
And that contrary to popular belief, that the NYT does not actually have a copy of the draft...
Furthermore, we already have President Trump, William Barr, and Mick Mulvaney ON RECORD as denying specific reports from the book that involve them. Barr stated that Bolton never came to him about the "shadow diplomacy" and a spokesman for Mulvaney just put out a statement denying that he ever had any discussions with Bolton on these subjects.
So you have hearsay of hearsay of hearsay of a book draft... likely leaked by an anti-Trumper to the anti-Trump media on the eve of the book's pre-and in the middle of the impeachment...
And there is zero collaboration to back up the claims being made (if the claims are even being accurately reported by what is in the book).
Sure... put him on the witness stand, under oath (as well as Mulvaney and Barr)... and if he testifies to something being denied by multiple people (and he cannot provide evidence to back it up)... then charge him for perjury!
Furthermore, we already have President Trump, William Barr, and Mick Mulvaney ON RECORD as denying specific reports from the book that involve them. Barr stated that Bolton never came to him about the "shadow diplomacy" and a spokesman for Mulvaney just put out a statement denying that he ever had any discussions with Bolton on these subjects.
We need to hear from all of them.
Under oath. In the Senate trial.
Testimony from John Bolton will not be hearsay.
Mulvaney just put out a statement denying that he ever had any discussions with Bolton on these subjects.
We need to hear from all of
Under oath. In the Senate trial.
I'm sure Warren, Sanders, Kolbachar, and Biden will be thrill with you James.
when you're old, stupid and desperate, you'll cling to anything
will be thrillED
Things have gotten stickier for Attorney General William Barr.
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript appears to contradict Justice Department assertions about how and when Barr first learned that President Donald Trump mentioned him on a now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The New York Times first reported on Bolton’s book Sunday, including the startling new claim that Bolton told Barr that Trump had mentioned him during the call. During the conversation, Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Trump’s political rivals and told him, “I will tell Rudy [Giuliani] and Attorney General Barr to call.”
According to statements by the Justice Department and previous reporting from the New York Times, Barr only found out about the call in mid-August, when a CIA officer’s whistleblower’s complaint about it reached the Justice Department for a potential criminal referral.
But Bolton’s assertion contradicts that timeline.
Bolton reportedly claims in his book that he raised concerns about Rudy Giuliani’s shadow foreign policy with Barr after the President’s July phone call, and that he told Barr Trump had mentioned him on the call. On Monday, the Times reporter Michael Schmidt — one of the reporters who broke the news about Bolton’s book — described Bolton as telling Barr about the call “right after” it occurred.
That directly conflicts with what the Justice Department has said about Barr’s knowledge of the call. A Barr spokesperson denied to the Times that he learned about the call from Bolton.
On Sept. 25, the same day the White House released its record of the call after news of it became public, Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement: “The Attorney General was first notified of the President’s conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky several weeks after the call took place, when the Department of Justice learned of a potential referral.”
The statement flatly denied that Trump had spoken to Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son,” which was seen at the time as a potential effort to distance the Justice Department from Trump’s behavior on the call with Zelensky.
Kupec also claimed on Sept. 25 that the DOJ determined in August that Trump’s actions on the call with Zelensky did not violate campaign finance law.
The New York Times reported on Sept. 26, citing multiple unnamed people familiar with the events, that Barr learned of the call after CIA general counsel Courtney Simmons Elwood informed the White House about it, and after lower-level DOJ officials had been looped in.
Sunday’s Times report on Bolton’s book appears to undercut that version of events.
Also in August, the intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson received the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s call and submitted it for review to Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. Maguire went to the Justice Department with the complaint, asking if it detailed an “urgent concern” that he was required to transmit to Congress.
In a Sept. 3 opinion, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel determined the complaint wasn’t urgent — and therefore that it could be kept under wraps.
Had the story ended there — had Atkinson not complained to Congress about Maguire’s actions — Trump may not have faced an impeachment inquiry and trial in the first place.
The news that Bolton’s first-hand account contradicts the Justice Department’s claims about the timeline of these events could amplify calls for Barr to testify and share documents about what he knew, and when. Kupec did not respond to TPM’s request for comment.
Well... we know ONE thing for sure!
Mulvaney would be a positive witness for Trump. His statement is exactly what the GOP would have wanted (and what Democrats would have feared). That the chief of staff never heard any discussions regarding Trump and any quid pro quo.
Oh, and by the looks of it... Bolton is likely claiming that this discussion(s) in question took place with Mulvaney there (rather than between just him and the President)... so it would definitely be a matter of he said, he said, he said..
We still have no clue if Bolton would or would not confirm what is being "written" in the NYT and WaPo. His statement neither confirms or denies anything (and why would it when pre-sales hit the market today).
If he testifies at this point, knowing everyone else associated with his alleged conversations (on multiple fronts with multiple people) are going to be contradicting what the book says... it would be interesting to see what he says.
Again... not that it changes anything. Trump still will not be removed from office because of John Bolton.
But it's also highly possible that these "stories" in the NYT and WaPo are taking the same talking point liberties that has been following this thing the whole way... which is basically any talk of any Ukrainian investigation is automatically an investigation "into the Bidens".
IOW... if all Bolton "really" heard was Burisma, an anti-corruption statement, or something of those regards, the manner in which this has been spun by ever Democrat and everyone in the liberal media is that EVERYTHING is all about investigating the Bidens!
Sunday’s Times report on Bolton’s book appears to undercut that version of events.
So we have multiple sources claiming the exact same thing...
and a NYT hearsay story alleging something different "undercuts" that?
Nope... the fact that this is well documented by multiple sources and has been for some time... and is likely 100% true...
Undercuts the NYT John Bolton story!
I mean, jeepers... what bizzarro world do you people live in?
If the NYT report correctly quotes John Bolton, his testimony most definitely undercuts Trump's version of events.
Hey James, e at heard of auto correct? So shove your immature word games up your ass.
Blogger James said...
If the NYT report correctly quotes John Bolton, his testimony most definitely undercuts Trump's version of events.
If? You don't know?
Well that's the problem, isn't it?
Gosh she's calling Giuliani a liar, isn't she, because Giuliani has claimed all along only to have been doing the President's bidding, hasn't he?
So we need Giuliani to testify. The more the merrier.
CH the trump ass eater says....
Mulvaney would be a positive witness for Trump.
Positive that trump did it.....your BS argument of what the times said versus your opinion is more amusing than normal, idiot....the times story is about as hearsay as boltons words that will cause a lot of teeth gnashing in the next few days......BWAAAAAAAAA!!!
Senators really asked themselves two questions?
1. Will additional witnesses change the outcome of the trial?
2. If, the answer to the above is no, isn't additional witnesses a waste of time?
Slight improvement:
If the NYT report correctly quotes John Bolton, his testimony BEFORE THE SENATE UNDER OATH WILL most definitely undercut Trump's version of events.
And if they don't?
isn't additional witnesses a waste of time?
Not if refusing to have them is seen by Americans voters as a cowardly fear of more information.
Watching the R circus is simply a labor or despair as these assholes with a straight face blame the congress for incompetence!!!!! Now with bolton's words coming out to haunt trump and you slurpers.....going to get real interesting when the whole story comes out....like the real transcript of the call versus the cherry picked version that idiots like cramps claims to be a transcript......BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Trump team resumes defense amid fallout from new report on Bolton, Ukraine aid
Key GOP senators say reports on Bolton book bolster case for witnesses in trial
Sens. Susan Collins and Mitt Romney said they expect other Republicans to back a push for new evidence as part of President Trump’s trial. A vote is expected later this week.
By Seung Min Kim, Rachael Bade and Mike DeBonis1 hour ago
Mounting evidence indicates Trump’s focus was on Biden, not corruption in Ukraine
Former national security adviser John Bolton’s draft book manuscript is the latest account pointing to the president’s fixation on political rivals.
and if they don't?
Let him testify and we will see. :-)
Also, Bolton's book will not go away even if he does not testify, and he could always have news conferences and repeat his version of events.
Not if refusing to have them is seen by Americans voters as a cowardly fear of more information.
i think most Americans want to have their soap operas back. Only nerds like us care about this.
This whole Bolton thing is manufactured by 5he media do they can report on something else to try to drown out rhe Trump lawyers.
look what comeys book did, will be same with guliani
and comey swore fisa warrants were totally above board
President Trump’s defense lawyers are offering an alternative rationale for why he froze security aid for Ukraine, ignoring revelations from the president’s former national security adviser that directly contradict their case. John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, revealed in a manuscript that Mr. Trump wanted to continue freezing security aid to Ukraine until he got help with investigations into Democrats, and calls are intensifying for witnesses to appear in the trial.
Call Biden family members too!
If you testifies under oath and contradicts the president will you believe him?
To mine mind the Trump Lawyers are brilliantly ignoring the shiny ball and are just dealing with the facts in evidence.
You know another "blockbuster" story will be released tonight as the media throw Hail Marys after Hail Marys to unseat Trump.
, isn't additional witnesses a waste of time?
Cramps incorrectly speaking for the voters of the mid west who pushed trump to victory.....about 100K pulling their heads out of their asses and realizing trump is a lying cheating crook is a big deal!!!!!!!
Boy, is this presentation getting BORING.
whiny ball and are just dealing with the facts in evidence
And ignoring the elephant that just sat on their parade!!!!!!!! First hand account.....the thing you and the assholes have asked for since the whistleblowers complaint came out!!!!! Now you got it....and you think the unsure american voter will ignore this account and think trump is perfect.....aint gonna happen cramps....only slurpers will support .....!!!!
Philban is quoting Janet Reno on executive privilege and close advisor immunity.
Again, the ball less wonder proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a box of rocks is smarter then he is with....
Anonymous Myballs said...
This whole Bolton thing is manufactured by 5he media do they
BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!! You really enjoy sucking cocks doncha ballz??????
First hand account....
Then again Bolton may have just presumed what Trump intended,
If the NYT report correctly quotes John Bolton, his testimony most definitely undercuts Trump's version of events.
Here is how logic works Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Stupidity!
Person A denies making a deal with Person B
Person B denies making a deal with Person A
Person C denies ever hearing about any deal
The alleged deal never actually takes place
Then person D comes along and claims that Person A told him that he made a deal with Person B and that Person C was there and heard it.
Person D has literally no logical leverage to demand his word takes precedent over the words of everyone else.
Not to mention the REALITY that there was no deal.
Now short of person D having some tangible documents, video, or audio of a deal being made between person A and person B...
Then guess what!
Person D is not to be believed... unless you are just that desperate to believe him.
Trump team citing scotus case law to shoot downvtbr obstruction charge.
Now showing Schumer 20 years ago.
Jane Gibberish.
The guy talking would bore a simple mind like James. But the U.S. Senate is listening. Many themselves are attorneys.
This All Star Team is putting the clown nose on the Socialist Democrat JV Team.
The senate should vote for a directed dismissal of article 2 and the vote should be unanimous.
The Thunderclap Of Winning gets ever louder as Socialist mutts of CHT loss again.
😊The Supreme Court has removed a judge’s temporary block on the White House’s “public charge” immigration rule that steers the awarding of American green cards to better-educated, younger, and healthier migrants.
The January 27, 5:4 decision is a big win for President Donald Trump and his populist advisers, partly because the court also slammed lower-court judges who impose nationwide rules in lawsuits that involve a few local plaintiffs.😚
If the NYT report correctly quotes John Bolton, his testimony most definitely undercuts Trump's version of events..
Here is how logic works!
If person A is National Security Adviser and is often with the President and testifies (or writes) that he heard the President state that he intends to withhold aid from Ukraine until/unless Zelensky announces an investigation politically favorable to the President, and that fits in with what a number of other people in the loop have said, person A's direct firsthand testimony most definitely, definitely undercuts Trump's claim that he did not say or do that.
FACT: And we know that Zelensky was reluctantly about to comply with Trump's request until he learned that the aid had beem released and so he didn't have to.
Trump Wiining for The Bluest of Blue Collar Workers . Michigan is Trumps, locked up.
"General Motors (GM) will invest $2.2 billion to produce electric and self-driving cars at its Detroit-Hamtramck plant in Michigan, the company announced Monday."
Senate Republicans Struggle AND HOW! to Get on Message
“Senate Republicans, thrown off-balance Monday by the latest John Bolton revelations, are offering a range of convoluted — and at times contradictory — responses to an episode that threatens to upend President Trump’s impeachment trial,” Politico reports.
“GOP senators, who hadn’t yet had time to coordinate their responses before arriving at the Capitol, offered an all-over-the-map assessment of the significance of the former national security adviser’s claim that Trump told him he would continue withholding military aid until Ukraine provided information about investigations he had been seeking into his Democratic rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden.”
More Democrat Senators are grumbling about what the Democrat House has done. Some are not about to walk on to the Schitt Ship and walk the Pelosi Plank.
On Message, it is the Economy Stupid.
"The defense team’s strategy rests on pretending that news doesn’t exist.”
— Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), observing that President Trump’s lawyers are ignoring reports about John Bolton’s book in their impeachment defense.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
If you testifies under oath and contradicts the president will you believe him?
that depends alky.
will it be the truth?
and if it's a demonstrable lie, will there be a penalty for lying to congress? that seems to be selective these days
you seem prepared to accept whatever bolton says, without giving any credence to the possibility that this is just another one of those popcorn fart bombshells. or the possibility that the supposed bad blood between bolton and trump could be total bullshit.
haberman has pulled this shit how many times now? she has not seen a book draft with her own eyes. she's relying on third person hearsay, and this entire "holy fucking shit, we really got him this time!!!11!" moment is just like the last SEVERAL that she's reported that has turned out to be ugatz.
Blogger James said...
"The defense team’s strategy rests on pretending that news doesn’t exist.”
Well in jurist prudence it doesn't exist. It called "facts not in evidence".
Pam Bondi looks good while she assassinates Hunter and Joe Biden on the floor of the US senate.
justin amash, eh pederast?
watch him lose his re-election bid by a lot.
he's a piece of shit and everyone knows it.
If person A is National Security Adviser and is often with the President and testifies (or writes) that he heard the President state that he intends to withhold aid from Ukraine
Making conclusion without facts. But nice try.
the last time i checked, the left said that we must... WE MUST!!!...believe all the wymyn:
Senator Kelly Loeffler
✔
@SenatorLoeffler
After 2 weeks, it’s clear that Democrats have no case for impeachment. Sadly, my colleague @SenatorRomney wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @realDonaldTrump during their 15 minutes of fame. The circus is over. It’s time to move on! #gapol
18.2K
12:42 PM - Jan 27, 2020
https://twitter.com/SenatorLoeffler/status/1221850900798607360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1221850900798607360&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2020%2F01%2F27%2Fthe-circus-is-over-senator-kelly-loeffler-calls-mitt-romney-out-in-a-big-way-for-trying-to-appease-the-left-with-impeachment-witnesses%2F
this joyous ruling brings a tear to my eye...
In 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court allows Trump plan to deny green cards to those who may need gov't aid
The DHS said last year that it would expand the definition of "public charge" to be applied to people whose immigration to the U.S. could be denied because of a concern that they would primarily depend on federal assistance.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/5-4-ruling-supreme-court-allows-trump-plan-deny-green-n1124056?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma
The Democrats know that impeachment will not lead to a conviction. They accept that they are not gaining traction in the polls. They fear that Trump’s wounds heal quickly and what doesn’t destroy him can make him stronger.
So why continue? Again, there is little other alternative. Moreover, addicts do not act logically and the Left is hooked on Trump and cannot quit him. Finally, they hope to destroy Trump physically. He will be 74 in June. By the standards of senior medicine, they feel Trump is locked in a self-destructive cycle: little sleep, little exercise, poor diet, too heavy, too stressed.
Very few politicians in memory could physically endure the invective, hate, and furor aimed at Trump and his family daily over the last three years. Much less, could any president function with 90 percent negative media coverage, moles in the executive branch monitoring his every breath, and an unhinged opposition whose reason to get up in the morning is to end Trump.
The Democrats believe that one more whistleblower, just a bit more impeachment, a little more Nadler or Schiff, a pinch more of Pelosi, or another Ukrainian or Russian liar might finally give Trump a stroke or malignancy. With Trump debilitated, they might have a chance against a more traditional Republican.
We will be down to the elemental after impeachment: if you can’t beat Trump legislatively, judicially, or electorally, and if you can’t impeach, convict him and remove him, perhaps you can simply physically destroy him.
- Victor Davis Hanson
FACT: And we know that Zelensky was reluctantly about to comply with Trump's request until he learned that the aid had beem released and so he didn't have to
Actually that's not a fact... Zelensky himself has denied it.
When a Trump lawyer says "Don't take my word for it. Let's walk through the facts." Another impeachment argument gets destroyed.
Romney said Monday, repeatedly calling Bolton’s testimony “relevant.”
Actually that's not a fact... Zelensky himself has denied it.
LINK?
Son of Giuliani Makes $95K Working in White House
January 27, 2020 at 6:49 pm EST
Rudy Giuliani’s 31-year old son, Andrew Giuliani, makes $95,000 per year working for the White House as “liaison to the sports community,” CNBC reports.
“The son of the former New York mayor was a college golfer. He joined the Duke University golf team in 2006 but was cut from the team in 2008 after he allegedly threw an apple at a teammate and threw and broke a golf club in a parking lot.”
All the President’s Turncoats
January 27, 2020 at 6:05 pm EST
Windsor Mann:
“No one scares President Trump as much as people who used to work for him. They know the truth about him, and some of them tell it. When they do, Trump denies it and smears them.
“It’s amazing how many people have turned on Trump in just his first term. He is a man who prizes loyalty above all else, and yet one toady after another has betrayed him.”
Trump’s Lawyers Double Down
January 27, 2020 at 6:43 pm EST
“President Trump’s team of lawyers did not change their tactics Monday despite bombshell new revelations related to former national security adviser John Bolton’s alleged knowledge about the Ukraine affair at the center of the president’s impeachment trial,” The Hill reports.
“In hours of arguments on the Senate floor, Trump’s attorneys did not address or seek to knock down Bolton’s account, as Trump himself has done.”
_________
I bet that too is disturbing Trump. He may yet have to be taken from the White House in a straight jacket.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/figliuzzi-the-only-way-to-combat-bolton-testimony-would-be-to-put-trump-on-the-stand-77644357601
Yeah, Bolton and TRUMP for the Bidens, Schiff and the whistleblower.
LINK, CH?
HERE'S your LINK, CH. Unfortunately it doesn't say what you want it to.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/zelensky-nearly-announced-the-investigations-trump-wanted-then-everything-changed
7 in a row from James. He's desperate.
7 in a row from James. He's desperate.
The Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Stupidity...
Would rather believe the Talking Points Memo than the Ukrainian President, who has been quoted multiple times as saying there was no quid pro quo agreement.
Ironically... the Reverend has quoted people arguing that Zelensky only denies these agreements out of "fear" of reprisal from Trump (although you were to believe these same liberals, Zelensky double crossed Trump and their quid pro quo agreement because some mid level State employee told him to).
Meanwhile the idiot Reverend... cannot use a search tool!
A simple Bing search of "Zelensky denies being pressured" produces 189,000 results, while "Zelensky denies quid pro quo" search produces 4.5 million results. There are multiple stories from multiple sources with multiple interviews with multiple people (and even multiple countries) and Zelensky always says the same thing. No pressure and no quid pro quo agreement...
And the Moron Reverend pretends that he is neither aware of this, or is incapable of looking it up!
Oh... and he will say it's a "FACT" that Zelensky is lying and that he "really" had agreed to the Quid Pro Quo and "just about to prove it to the world" when that mid-level State employee saved him by overruling the President and Secretary of State!
and somehow, he wasn't afraid to double cross the President...
just afraid to tell the truth about it?
Yes... a "FACT" because he read it in a blog!
Even though the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine denies any and all pressure or quid pro quo. Even though the Attorney General of the United States and his counterpart in Ukraine deny any agreements regarding any investigations.
The greatest part of all of this...
Is that the latest liberal heroes are:
1) A disgruntled former fired employee who they once hated!
2) A indicted lowlife, who is currently out on bail awaiting sure conviction!
These are the people they would like to trust over World Leaders!
LOL Ch, what you say will just plain not hold up. Of course there was a time when Zelensky "said" he was not under pressure. What else could he say? He was desperate for the much needed aid to be released.
But the simple fact is that he later reluctantly concluded (after he had been repeatedly told this) that he HAD to aquiesce to Trump's demand, and was about to, when to his relief, he no longer had to.
That's how it happened and how people will remember it after your palaver has been long forgotten.
It's easier to tell the truth than to tell lies because lies will trip you up.
Schiff said the truth would emerge, one way or another.
John Bolton Knows What He’s Doing
The former national security adviser’s secrets are valuable, and will come at a cost.
IOW, HE'S INTERESTED IN MORE THAN BOOK PROFITS.
3:15 PM ET
Graeme Wood
Staff writer at The Atlantic
John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, announced the title of his forthcoming memoir last night: The Room Where It Happened, a reference to the Oval Office, the scene of some of the misdeeds he is likely to attribute to the president. (I had hoped for something jauntier, perhaps ’Stached in the Cabinet.)
Accompanying that announcement was a story in The New York Times teasing readers with revelations. The most significant is that Trump allegedly conditioned his release of Ukrainian military aid not only on that country’s announcement of an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden, but also on its release of evidence of the Biden family’s involvement in Robert Mueller’s probe. In fact, there is no such evidence, and the only people who believe that there is such evidence are wing-nut conspiracy theorists and, it seems, the president of the United States.
My colleague David Frum appealed to Bolton’s patriotism a few months ago, asking him to speak freely about Trump. Frum is Bolton’s former colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, so I suspect he knew that appealing to Bolton’s selfless, wholly unremunerated goodwill is about as likely to be successful as asking him for a foot massage. [HA HA HA}
Bolton left office in an embarrassing and undignified way, having been canned by Trump and insulted by Trump’s key informal adviser, Tucker Carlson. (Carlson, a Bolton hater for years, called him a “tapeworm” and told Trump to ignore his advice.)
Bolton’s secrets are therefore valuable in numerous ways: They got him a huge book deal; they position him as an insider able to command high speaking fees before rapt right-wing audiences; and finally, they make him a feared enemy of Trump and his allies. For Bolton to surrender these advantages for free, to the advantage not of himself but of liberals with whom he agrees on little, would be for Bolton to stop being Bolton.
He has waited until speaking is to his advantage, and he calculates his advantage like a high-end litigator. Before he rose to important policy-level jobs in government, he attended Yale Law School and practiced law as a partner at Covington & Burling. Whether he was attracted to the law because he is cold-blooded, punctilious, and manipulative, or became cold-blooded, punctilious, and manipulative because the practice of the law rewards those traits, is immaterial. This is his character, and it explains all his delays in coming forward with his account. In litigation, one never makes a concession without getting something in return, and without forcing your adversary to do everything exactly right in the course of making a demand. If the law requires your adversary to tap dance and hum “Flight of the Bumblebee” while making a request, you postpone giving an answer until every note is hummed in tune and every tap lands with a crisp and pleasing crack. Every concession of your own diminishes your own space to maneuver, and every concession by your opponent—even just a factual admission—pens him into a smaller space.
To act this way in a context outside of litigation is commonly known as “being an asshole.” That explains, in part, Bolton’s reputation for unpleasantness: He unapologetically forces people to get the details, what in government is often called “process,” exactly right. I am reminded of a Muslim cleric who explained to me that to mumble your way through prayer is like dialing a phone number that is a digit or two off: The message doesn’t go through, and the exercise is pointless. Bolton has a tendency to regard rivals who flub process as incompetents who can’t get things done. And being an asshole, unlovely as it may sound, might not be such a bad thing, if you get things done and follow the rules.
Silence up to now has bought Bolton the Litigator something very valuable. He has now listened as others present “in the room”—including his deputies, such as Fiona Hill—have recorded their versions of events. He has heard Republicans, including Trump, lay out an impeachment defense—not only a version of events, but also a theory of innocence. By speaking last, he can present testimony precisely calculated to hurt those he most wants to embarrass. Even just today, in response to the initial leaks from Bolton’s book, Trump tweeted a suspiciously grammatical series of statements demeaning Bolton and denying that Bolton was told to delay aid to Ukraine. Bolton is strategic, and it would be unlike him to make a bold claim without a plan to counter Trump’s denial. More likely, he will dole out the details and evidence methodically, thwarting his critics like steers in a cutting horse competition.
None of this means that Bolton will reverse the course of the impeachment, even if he testifies. The trial’s ultimate verdict is less in the balance than the ability of Republicans to continue to defend their president without self-abasement. But count on Bolton to know that the value (in all senses) of that testimony will decline after the impeachment trial, so he is doing everything he can to make his testimony necessary, and to deliver it while it is in highest demand.
When I profiled Bolton for this magazine last year, many of his acquaintances noted that the job of national security adviser was the last and highest one he was ever likely to hold, because past confirmation attempts were too acrimonious to be worth reprising. Now his options are, if anything, more open than they were three years ago.
Bolton reopened his super PAC after leaving office. He has protected some of his Republican credibility by refusing to volunteer his testimony to the House, and by saying that he will testify before the Senate only if subpoenaed. He has positioned himself as a temporary ally to the Democrats, or at least as a bureaucrat who follows the law rather than kneeling before Trump.
This change, along with changes in confirmation rules, makes it easier to imagine that Bolton would be a candidate someday for high office, perhaps secretary of state. In the event that Trump is removed or loses the election, Bolton will be a rare Republican who served the party competently both before and during the Trump era, and who is untainted enough to serve again.
Many of the politicians who have joined Trump’s administration have fantasized that when this is all over, they will be the last ones standing. Bolton is not immune to such fantasies. He is more likely than most others to be right.
TRUMP TEAM CRUSHES schiff's jv team
the lying POS "pastor" is left to posting unattributed magazine articles by desperate deniers.
save them for Hunter so he can roll them up to do come coke before he testifies if they go to witnesses.
His dad is now officially toast.
and a bunch of obama reports will soon be.. I hear Durham and Barr's footsteps not too far away...
ROFLMFAO !!!
thebradfordfile™
@thebradfordfile
If Hunter Biden needs to testify, he should roll up to the Capitol Building in his $130,000 Porsche to show American taxpayers what the foreign aid they fund actually buys.
he actually settled his child care payments so he wouldn't have to produce financial statements. Then his dad got crushed.
Bad day for Bidens. Great day for Trump.
Will Chamberlain
@willchamberlain
Alan Dershowitz squarely addresses the so-called #BoltonBombshell
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations - EVEN IF TRUE - would amount to an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the language of the Constitution."
Game over, Dems.
Devastating coming down from that sugar high for the dems and MSM
OAN did a FANTASTIC job today, they owned Fox from what I saw.
But the simple fact is that he later reluctantly concluded (after he had been repeatedly told this) that he HAD to aquiesce to Trump's demand, and was about to, when to his relief, he no longer had to.
Well Reverend Hypocrite from the Church of Stupidity?
Does Mr "DO YOU HAVE A LINK" have an actual link (himself) where Zelensky provides this information to an actual reporter for the world to see? Because as far as 99.999% of the world understands, Zelensky is still telling everyone that there was no pressure and no quid pro quo... much less making any public statements regarding reaching any deal or being offered any deal.
Not some "story" told in some blog based on hearsay, second hand accounts, and "sources".
But an actual public "quote" from President Zelensky telling people he was "just about" to go make up stuff about the Bidens when he was saved by that mid-level State Dept worker who overruled The Secretary of State and the White House...
You know... a LINK to the quote. Because I cannot find that Zelensky quote no matter how hard I search.
Of course there was a time when Zelensky "said" he was not under pressure. What else could he say? He was desperate for the much needed aid to be released.
But the simple fact is that he later reluctantly concluded (after he had been repeatedly told this) that he HAD to aquiesce to Trump's demand, and was about to, when to his relief, he no longer had to.
this is flatly and demonstrably false, impugns the character of an ally, and calls him a liar to promote a false narrative.
and to use the word "truth" with the name "schiff" in the sentence insults the intelligence of anyone with an IQ greater than room temperature.
Post a Comment