If the Senate calls former National Security Advisor John Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial against President Trump it would open a Pandora's Box that would leave the Senate gridlocked for months, the president's lawyers told lawmakers on Wednesday.
Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin said if Mr. ...
Senators have been bystanders to the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump for nearly two weeks — until now.
Republicans and Democrats are posing questions to both the impeachment managers who made the case for Trump’s removal from office and the president’s attorneys who rebutted the House’s charges that Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress in the Ukraine saga.
But the senators are doing it silently: Chief Justice John Roberts is reading aloud the written questions submitted by party leaders. And Roberts has indicated that he intends to enforce a five-minute time limit on answers. That means, during the 16 hours of questioning set to take place over Wednesday and Thursday, senators could pose close to 200 questions.
Here are the most significant moments so far:
John Bolton’s forthcoming book claims that President Donald Trump wanted to continue withholding military aid from Ukraine until the country announced investigations into the president's political rivals. Is there any way to have a fully informed verdict without seeing all of the relevant documentary evidence?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the question to the House managers.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, answered the question by laying out Democrats’ case for calling additional witnesses as part of the trial — and why Democrats believe Bolton’s reported account in his forthcoming book supports their case for new testimony.
“There’s no way to have a fair trial without witnesses,” Schiff said, calling Bolton a relevant witness and noting that he often spoke directly for the president.
Schiff said that calling Bolton as a witness would “erase all doubt” senators might have about the motive for Trump’s decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine.
“If you have any question about whether it was a factor, the factor, a quarter of a factor, all of the factor — there is a witness, a subpoena away who could answer that question,” Schiff added.
“Don’t wait for the book.”
Schumer’s question is at the heart of what the Senate will consider on Friday when it votes on whether to subpoena additional witnesses and documents. Democrats have been hammering their case for new evidence, pointing to Bolton’s reported account to boost their arguments.
Most notably, Schiff played clips of Trump’s lawyers Pat Cipollone and Michael Purpura during their opening arguments, in which they harangued the House managers for lack of first-hand witness testimony.
It showed that the House’s strategy for building support for additional witnesses relies, at least in part, on the White House lawyers’ own contentions.
How should the Senate consider if the president had more than one motive in asking Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals?
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Romney (R-Utah) asked the White House legal team.
Patrick Philbin, one of Trump’s attorneys, said the House’s entire case depends on proving that the president’s request for Ukraine to investigate his political rivals is an unmitigated sham with no legitimate alternative reason.
“Once you’re into any mixed motive situation, once it is established that there is a legitimate public interest … the managers’ case fails and it fails under their own terms,” he said.
House Democrats based their case on the notion that Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate his rivals had no other purpose than to benefit himself politically. Throughout their defense, White House lawyers argued that in fact Trump had a real anti-corruption motive for asking Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rival, former vice president Joe Biden.
Philbin is trying to bolster the argument that even if Trump was seeking a personal benefit, as long as he also had a real anti-corruption motive alongside it, the House’s case must fail.
But most notable, perhaps, is that Republican leaders gave the first question to three of the only Republican senators believed to be open to calling new witnesses like John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser.
The Democrats don’t give a damn what John Bolton or anybody else might say; they know it won’t affect the outcome at all.
What they want is the ability to accuse a few Senators, who they perceive as being vulnerable, of participating in a cover-up by voting against calling witnesses. This whole silly charade is about the 2020 election and not just the presidential election, which they already know they will probably lose.
Given that impeachment is delaying the judicial confirmation express, the sooner it ends, the better. That means it would be best to have no witnesses. But if there are any, Hunter Biden and other witnesses requested by Trump’s team must be included.
MORE NEWS: Tucker Carlson Rips Into Bolton, Compares Him to Snake from Trump’s Parable
Sen. Lindsey Graham: “I’m increasingly optimistic this ends Friday. I think the question is whether we should have additional testimony from witnesses that the House refused to call. Lets assume for a moment that John Bolton would say what the New York Times said he would say, ‘The President told me to put a freeze on the aid because I want to look at the Bidens.’ I’m paraphrasing. The President had every reason to want to look at the Bidens.
The House managers told us there’s not a scintilla of evidence the Bidens did anything wrong, this has been completely debunked, thoroughly investigated. That is a complete lie. The defense team destroyed the House’s case,”
“If after listening to Pam Bondi you’re okay with how Hunter Biden conducted himself in the Ukraine and you’re okay with Joe Biden not having a clue of what was going on, that’s more about you that it is about anything else. There’s a mountain of evidence that the Biden’s were involved in corruption. The President would have been wrong not to ask the Ukrainians to help given what we know about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.”
The Dems have done such a masterful job of deflection; it should be studied in school. They have completely taken Biden’s corruption off the table, smeared Trump, and tied up Bernie during the primaries all at the same time.
MORE NEWS: John Bolton Has a New Career: Going After Donald Trump
They learned the technique of accusing your opponent of what you are guilty of from the master, Bill Clinton. He must be very proud of his students. They have raised such an incredible stink and smokescreen; no one will ever touch Biden again. Certainly not the Republicans, nor Barr. The Bidens have been given a get out of jail free card — just like Hillary.
Actually, the only way to expose the corruption of the Deep State and the Democrats is to call witnesses, bring out everything. I don’t think there’s any chance Trump will be impeached; the votes simply aren’t there. But the Democrats had to be head-faked into demanding witnesses so the public could see exactly who the traitors are and why.
So sit back, enjoy the show, stock up on popcorn, chips, dip, and your favorite beverage. The Democrats will rue the day they pushed impeachment because the perfect storm is upon them but they are so full of hate they can’t think straight; they don’t recognize the peril they’re in!
And first and foremost, watch the plan unfold before your very eyes, the patriots planned this from the beginning!
More Stories From WayneDupree.com
The post Hey Dems, Bolton’s Testimony Won’t Change Anything – Trump Isn’t Being Removed appeared first on The Political Insider.
Senate Republicans seem to have finally gamed out the witness situation in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump at least a couple months past the actual vote—and they are in deep doo doo, to use a technical turn of phrase. Whether or not former national security adviser John Bolton appears as a witness in the Senate trial, his account is going to come out in book form mere months from now. As my colleague Mark Sumner writes, that's exactly why Senate Republicans are newly trying to sell the fantastical reasoning that Bolton's account doesn't matter one way or other, no matter what he ultimately says. That way, whether Americans get Bolton's account through testimony now or through his prose months from now, Senate Republicans can dismiss it as irrelevant to the matter of Trump’s removal from office. Again, this is an otherworldly take in which Trump is king and above the law, and Republicans completely shred the Constitution and everything it stands for in support of the most incompetent and corrupt president America has ever seen.
Now, as a practical matter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't currently have the votes to quash Bolton’s testimony, as he has said. But why end the bluff now? First, so that the White House and other Trump cultists can apply maximal pressure to the Republicans who are potentially poised to make the rest of the GOP caucus look horrible by voting in favor of the only intellectually honest thing to do—hear from witnesses. McConnell's other concern is that he's up for reelection back home, where he's deeply unpopular, and he doesn't want to be caught solely holding the bag for losing this critical vote.
Campaign ActionAll that said, anything can happen over the next couple of days of questioning in the Senate trial, which, it's worth remembering, will be curated by McConnell and will not be an organic process by any means. Nonetheless, perhaps more information à la another Bolton excerpt or a Lev Parnas interview will drop, completely roiling the GOP caucus. Or not. Although Utah Sen. Mitt Romney continues to say he wants to hear from witnesses, perhaps Trump's maximal pressure campaign will squelch the Romney faction, leaving only Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (for process reasons) and Maine Sen. Susan Collins (for electoral reasons) to vote with Romney. That would leave the witness faction one vote shy of the four Republican votes necessary.
Whatever happens, my personal belief is that Senate Republicans will either fall short of what's needed to call witnesses or end up with more than four votes. No one wants to be tagged as being the "fourth vote," but if it starts to become clear in hushed conversations that the votes are there, then the witness faction will likely pick up several more votes rather than just one. People such as Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman are potential additions, more for legacy reasons than anything else. And perhaps a vulnerable Republican such as North Carolina's Thom Tillis will join Collins in determining that a no vote on witnesses would be nearly impossible to defend. But again, outside of Collins, most vulnerable Republican Senators (e.g., Tillis, McSally, Gardner) appear to have determined that hugging Trump is the only way to win reelection (or perhaps lose but still have a future in GOP circles). In any case, my guess would be that the witness vote either falls short or draws four-plus support, depending on what happens between now and Friday.
Now for a couple of side notes: Don't fall for any of this ridiculous "witness trade" talk. Not only would it be stupid for Democrats to welcome a materially irrelevant witness like Hunter Biden in order to hear from Bolton, but the whole concept of a trade is a red herring. If Republicans have the votes to call Hunter Biden or Adam Schiff, they could and can do it. They have enough people in their caucus to authorize those witnesses without getting Democrats to sign off on it. So just let them stew in their juices over that. Democrats should remain focused on Bolton. And, as Schiff pointed out Tuesday, if they want a 1-for-1 trade, let them call someone relevant, such as acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who has contradicted Bolton's account.
Finally, let's remember where this entire inquiry started—it was deemed a plank walk for Democrats at the outset when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first announced it last fall. But she has played it masterfully, threading the needles of duty, oath of office, and public opinion all the way through. House Democrats managed to execute an inquiry that was seen as fair and has convinced a majority of the public that Trump should be removed from office, according to a preponderance of polling over the last month. Senate Republicans, at the moment, are now on the wrong side of the polling no matter what they do—whether they vote for witnesses and then acquit or forgo witnesses altogether and then acquit. Frankly, forgoing witnesses is their worst option, as a national consensus has emerged that witness testimony must be heard. If Senate Republicans choose to ignore some 70% of the population, they will pay the price at the ballot box in November. However, if they vote for witnesses, it opens a Pandora's box and McConnell loses control of the process. Win-win for Democrats.
Ultimately, regardless of what Senate Republicans do, House Democrats still have the final play. If they aren't satisfied with the process the GOP-led Senate has undertaken, Pelosi and Schiff now have more reason than ever to subpoena Bolton's testimony. No one can be 100% sure of what Bolton would say under oath, but House Democrats still have the opportunity to have the final say on what the public hears when Senate Republicans conclude their sham trial. That's pretty damn close to a checkmate in terms of congressional chess-playing.
According to a new report, three moderate Democratic senators have signaled they might vote to acquit President Donald Trump in the upper chamber’s impeachment trial.
Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Doug Jones of Alabama and Kyrsten Sinema could break ranks with their Democratic colleagues. At least one of them has also said they could vote in favor of only one impeachment article — the abuse of power — but oppose obstruction of Congress.
This week in an interview with Politico, Manchin said he will only support only one of the articles if he “can explain one and not the other.” He has yet to decide on whether he will run for re-election in 2024, said he won’t make a final decision on how he will vote until after the trial concludes.
“I know it’s hard to believe that. But I really am [undecided]. But I have not made a final decision. Every day, I hear something, I think ‘this is compelling, that’s compelling,’” Manchin said. “Everyone’s struggling a little bit.”
RELATED: Adam Schiff Wants Trump Removed Because He Won’t Do “What’s Right For This Country”
Trio of Democrat Senators in Red States Are Considering Acquittal Vote on Impeachment — They Want to Keep Their Job https://t.co/9QDXNaiboI Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are considering a vote to acquit President Trump
— Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.
(@jerome_corsi) January 29, 2020
The most vulnerable Senate incumbent among Democrats is Jones, who had previously criticized the “obstruction of Congress” article and has said he is “troubled” that House Democrats failed to call White House officials as witnesses.
“I don’t think I’ve totally decided. I certainly have [been] leaning one way or the other. That needle moves” Jones told Politico. “I am leaning in certain ways but I want to hear, I truly, honestly, want to hear the entire trial.”
Sinema’s silence on impeachment suggests her vote is still undecided. A spokesperson said she supports gathering more evidence to “make a more fully informed decision at the end of the trial.”
Theses senators’ comments come as Democrats now want to call former White House National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify as a witness. The New York Times reported Sunday that Bolton’s upcoming book reveals that President Trump wanted to tie U.S. military to Ukraine to inquiries into allegations of corruption in former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden.
President Trump has rejected these claims, and took direct aim at Bolton Wednesday morning in a pair of tweets.
“For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, ‘begged’ me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying ‘Don’t do it, sir,’ takes the job, mistakenly says ‘Libyan Model’ on T.V., and many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?” the president wrote.
….many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2020
RELATED: Trump Blasts Bolton Over ‘Nasty’ and ‘Untrue’ Book
Some liberals have urged others to call these senators and ask them to impeach Donald Trump.
What’s stopping conservatives from urging them to do the opposite?
Sounds like these 3 DEM Senators @JoeManchinWV @SenatorSinema and @SenDougJones need to hear from you!
Manchin: 202-224-3954
Sinema: 202-224-4521
Jones: 202-224-4124CALL & ASK FOR REMOVAL OF IMPOTUS! #WednesdayMotivation https://t.co/V37uqUFQDd
— She Persisted Still (@awoman_scorned) January 29, 2020
The post Three Democratic Senators May Vote to Acquit Trump of Impeachment appeared first on The Political Insider.
Senators got their first crack at the impeachment managers Wednesday as they kicked off 16 hours of questions with one on whether a president can have mixed motives for taking official action — and when it becomes a high crime or misdemeanor.
Patrick Philbin, one of the president's lawyers, said ...
Despite being hailed as a major bipartisan trade deal, President Trump refused to invite Democrats to the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) ceremonial signing.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office complained about the snub and did their best to save face.
“The White House hasn’t invited House Democrats to their USMCA signing ceremony,” Spokesman for the Speaker, Henry Connelly, said in a statement.
“But we’ll be well represented in the huge changes to the original USMCA draft that Democrats wrested out of the Administration on labor, prescription drugs, environment and enforcement mechanisms,” he added.
No ceremonial golden pens to take home this time, eh Democrats?
JUST IN: President Trump signs the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
The USMCA represents a rare bipartisan achievement. The House passed it by an overwhelming 385-41 vote in December and the Senate followed with an 89-10 vote earlier this month https://t.co/091wFspE3c pic.twitter.com/kMxFCKX92C
— World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) January 29, 2020
RELATED: USMCA: ‘A Trump Win’ and ‘A Win for the American People’
It’s anybody’s guess as to why President Trump specifically refused to invite Democrats to the ceremony, but there is no shortage of justified reasons.
Perhaps it’s the reprehensible impeachment sham they’ve dragged the entire country through. The baseless investigations they’ve conducted over the last few years with little to no evidence of wrongdoing. The constant obstructionism.
Or maybe, as seen in the statement from Pelosi’s office, the President didn’t want Democrats taking credit for a win secured by the administration.
The “huge changes” referenced in the Speaker’s statement didn’t exactly come from the House resistance gang.
Fox News personality Laura Ingraham said she knows “a little bit about this deal” and to nobody’s surprise, the Democrats are lying.
“She [Pelosi] conceded on all major aspects of the deal except a few provisions, regarding drug companies that won’t get protections that they wanted,” Ingraham explained. “And look, we know the president himself has wanted to get tougher on the drug companies, anyway.”
They engaged in a bipartisan effort at the same time they were doing their damndest to remove @realDonaldTrump from office. Now they want credit for tossing the American people a cookie?
Context matters.
— Rusty Weiss
(@rustyweiss74) January 29, 2020
RELATED: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Makes Scene, Insults Trump at Trade Signing
The last time the President had a camera-loving, self-absorbed liberal at a signing ceremony for the USMCA, it was Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau made a ridiculous scene, referring to the President as simply “Donald” during the meeting, repeatedly calling the USMCA, Trump’s preferred moniker, the ‘new NAFTA,’ and refusing to hold up his signed copy of the agreement when Trump suggested doing a photo op.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley called the new USMCA deal “a win for the American people.”
“This is a model agreement that changes the trade landscape forever,” Trump bragged at the time of the signing with Canada and Mexico.
“This is an agreement that first and foremost benefits working people, something of great importance to all three of us here today.”
A win for the American people and working-class citizens? No wonder Trump didn’t invite Democrats. They’ve been fighting against those groups of people since the dawn of time.
The post Trump Signs USMCA Trade Deal, Doesn’t Invite Democrats to Attend appeared first on The Political Insider.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) revealed on Wednesday that former national security adviser John Bolton “strongly implied” during a Sept. 23 phone call that President Donald Trump’s ouster of the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine was improper.
“On that call, Ambassador Bolton suggested to me — unprompted — that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,” Engel said in a statement, referring to the ambassador whom Trump recalled amid a campaign by his allies to tarnish her.
“He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv,” Engel continued, adding that the phone call took place after Bolton left the White House.
Engel’s disclosure of the phone call — which he says he described to the House’s investigative committees last year — appears timed to ramp up pressure on Senate Republicans debating whether to vote in favor of calling additional witnesses as part of the impeachment trial.
Trump wrote on Twitter earlier Wednesday that Bolton said “nothing” about his apparent concerns over Trump’s dealings with Ukraine — including, as was reported earlier this week, Bolton’s contention in his unpublished book that Trump told him that military aid to Ukraine was conditioned on the country’s willingness to announce investigations into Trump’s political opponents.
“Ambassador Bolton has made clear over the last few months that he has more to say on this issue,” Engel said. “And now that the president has called his credibility into question, it’s important to set the record straight.”
The call between Engel and Bolton occurred about two weeks after Engel’s committee, along with the House Intelligence and Oversight committees, had begun investigating matters related to Ukraine as part of a formal impeachment inquiry.
The investigation was meant to explore “President Trump’s and [Rudy] Giuliani’s attempts to manipulate the Ukrainian justice system to benefit the president’s re-election campaign” — allegations that later formed the core of the House’s charge that Trump abused his power and should be removed from office.
Investigators had been inquiring about the matter for months before the formal launch of the probe, which also came on a day before the Intelligence Committee revealed the existence of a whistleblower complaint that supercharged the House’s march toward impeachment.
Trump’s Republican allies questioned the timing of Engel’s revelation.
“Hardly groundbreaking or relevant,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) wrote on Twitter. “The more noteworthy item is that this is magically coming out 127 days into this impeachment process — on the eve of President Trump being acquitted, as Democrats rapidly lose momentum. You can smell their desperation.”