Bolton bombshell ramps up the pressure on Senate Republicans to call impeachment witnesses

The report that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book says Donald Trump told him that nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine was held up to pressure the country to interfere in the 2020 elections is a direct challenge to every Republican senator. The supposedly “moderate” Republican senators have been frantically searching for any excuse to vote against calling witnesses in Trump’s impeachment—Democrats were mean! Why didn’t the House spend months and months in the courts so that Republicans could accuse them of impeaching close to an election?—but with a report that one of the key witnesses Democrats are seeking can and will fill in exactly what Trump said about his pressure campaign against Ukraine, their excuses are all gone.

That’s not to say that Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, Mitt Romney, and Lamar Alexander will do the right thing. Four of them need to step up and vote for a real trial rather than a continued cover-up. Four of them—or any other Senate Republican—need to be brave enough to go against Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. But the fact that we have to question whether four out of 53 Republicans will do this most basic thing to protect the integrity of the presidency and U.S. democracy is yet another indictment of today’s Republican Party and its drive for power above all else.

John Bolton is a hard-right warmonger, but somehow Senate Republicans and Donald Trump are making him look good—that’s how bad they are. “Bolton's motivations for testimony - he has a story he wants to tell, and he is concerned he'll be accused of holding stuff back to juice his book sales instead of speaking out,” New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted.

Now it’s on the Senate. Specifically, any four Senate Republicans to say that they put country, Constitution, and democracy above the short-term interests of Donald Trump and his Republican Party. 

John Bolton: Trump explicitly said Ukraine aid freeze was tied to investigations into Democrats

Former national security adviser John Bolton has refused House demands that he testify on the events surrounding the freezing of military aid to Ukraine and the efforts by Donald Trump’s allies and administration officials to pressure the Ukrainian government into announcing an investigation into potential Trump election opponent Joe Biden. Bolton is instead writing a book on his tenure.

In the now-circulating manuscript for that unreleased book, reports The New York Times, Bolton writes that Donald Trump personally told him he would continue to freeze the nearly $400 million in aid until Ukrainian officials aided his desired investigations into “Democrats” and “the Bidens.”

Bolton’s manuscript alleges direct involvement in the scheme to falsely smear and remove U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, reports The Times, and Pompeo both knew the claims to be false and suspected Giuliani was “acting on behalf of other clients.” Bolton also says he personally spoke with Trump Attorney General William Barr to inform Barr that Trump had identified him as part of Rudy Giuliani’s efforts on his now-infamous call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: Barr’s office had previously denied that he knew about that call until much later.

Importantly, The Times reports that the Trump White House was sent the manuscript for a standard pre-publication administration review in “recent weeks”—meaning Trump, his legal team, and others implicated have known what Bolton would testify to during this period in which they have loudly and angrily insisted that the Senate call no witnesses. If the White House has intentionally delayed or frozen the book’s publication in an attempt to block it until after the conclusion of the Senate impeachment trial, it could constitute yet another act meant to obstruct justice.

Republicans make clear they won’t be modifying their aversion to facts in defending Trump

On Saturday, Donald Trump’s lawyers lifted the corner a bit on what will be the Republican strategy for fighting impeachment come Monday.

First the Republicans will introduce the same five lies they’ve been spouting all along at the impeachment trial and earlier.

Then they will repeat the same five lies they just told us.

Next they will spend another hour telling the same lies again.

At this point they will take a break and hold a few interviews telling Foxaganda reporters the lies they just told on the Senate floor. 

During the afternoon, the Republicans will lay out the lies again, and then for each of the five, they will   

repeat  reiterate recapitulate rehash  reprise  restate 

After a break for food, they’ll return to the Senate chambers to repeat the lies. Five lies. The same ones. Again.

And again.

Forevermore.

This Republican charade might be mildly entertaining if it were a parody episode of “The Apprentice” instead of a constitutional crisis with outright tyranny eagerly waiting in the wings.

CNN Admits Trump Legal Team Success, But Argues a Lack of Diversity

By PoliZette Staff | January 26, 2020

Following a swift and decisive round of opening arguments by the Trump legal team in the Senate impeachment trial, members of the GOP and staunch followers of the President were left encouraged. But they were not the only ones.  Even oft-antagonistic CNN agreed with the sentiment of a strong performance by Trump’s team.

CNN legal analyst and liberal commentator Jeffrey Toobin shocked viewers when he admitted that the Republicans were “winning” the impeachment trial.  Here is what he said.

“Again, I just think the Republicans are winning here. The president is winning here. And as long as they don’t completely fall on their faces, which they’re all competent lawyers, they’re not going to do that, I think that’s fine for them.”

RELATED:  GOP Scores Big on First Day of Impeachment Trial Presentation

However, despite his comments acknowledging the GOP’s success, he was quick to point out the lack of diversity on Trump’s legal team. He further stated that “President Trump has too many white men as lawyers,” needing something negative to spin for CNN viewers.

He went on to describe the lack of women and pondered whether or not the Trump team would allow them to speak, in a clear zing meant to further the mainstream media’s narrative that the Trump White House is misogynistic and plump full of bigots.

Of course, as a counterpoint Toobin was certain to highlight diversity within the Democrat party, citing their strong commitment to the cause and equal representation among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.

RELATED: CNN’s Cuomo Rips ‘Trumpers’ for Attacking ‘Kid’ Greta Thunberg, Critics Remind Him of Sandmann Settlement

This is all too typical of the Democrat narrative, manipulating the optics and overall message while hiding behind the indefensible claims of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, or whatever the cause du jour may be.

While diversity is certainly welcomed and should be championed on all sides, placing the most qualified people into positions of power, regardless of race or gender, should remain the priority this country.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Crucial Moderate Senators Are ‘Offended’ and ‘Stunned’ After Nadler Accuses Senators of ‘Cover-Up’
Congressional Democrats Add Insult to Injury by Alienating Second Possible Impeachment Trial Swing Vote
VIDEO: Father Who Paid For Daughter’s College Roasts Elizabeth Warren

The post CNN Admits Trump Legal Team Success, But Argues a Lack of Diversity appeared first on The Political Insider.

Nadler Calls Trump a “Dictator”

By David Kamioner | January 25, 2020

It is a very strange type of despot who allows his political opponents to remain out of jail, much less publicly criticize him in front of a free national legislature where one house of that body has also been given permission by said dictator to try and remove him from office.

But then, President Donald Trump is unique in many ways.

Yes, the Democrats closed up their trial arguments on Friday with the gem of Democrat House manager Jerry Nadler accusing Trump of being a “dictator.”

Now we have put up with many flights of fancy from the Democrats. But the claim that they live under a dictatorship, while they flagellate President Trump in front of a global audience, is surely one of their most absurd lines.

RELATED: GOP Scores Big on First Day of Impeachment Trial Presentation

What the Democrats are doing, as previously noted in this space, is a move their ideological ancestors perfected in their heyday in the mid part of the last century. It is the “big lie.”

Repeat the most ridiculous lines often and loud enough, as long as you control the great part of the press, and there are those out there who will buy them regardless of the concept’s strident advocacy for cocoa puffs.

Combine that with the Democrat preference for arbitrary emotion over logic or facts and you have the kind of scenario where adult pundits on various cable news outlets will term Adam Schiff’s trial strategy and delivery as “brilliant” and “inspiring.”

Team Trump states that they did not intend to bring up Hunter Biden to any significant extent in their presentation. But since on Friday the Democrats obsessed on the Bidens, now in rebuttal the GOP has little option but to answer their forward defense on Monday.

RELATED: Schiff Refers to CBS ‘Head on Pike’ Story, Infuriating GOP: ‘Every One of Us Knows it is Not True’

Why the Democrats would do this, knowing full well the GOP would respond and thus put the Bidens center stage, is an interesting question to ponder.

And the plot gets curiouser and curiouser.

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Crucial Moderate Senators Are ‘Offended’ and ‘Stunned’ After Nadler Accuses Senators of ‘Cover-Up’
Congressional Democrats Add Insult to Injury by Alienating Second Possible Impeachment Trial Swing Vote
VIDEO: Father Who Paid For Daughter’s College Roasts Elizabeth Warren

The post Nadler Calls Trump a “Dictator” appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump’s legal team begins defense in Senate impeachment trial

As the Senate impeachment trial continued on Saturday, President Trump's legal team laid out their case against removing him from office, contending the Democratic House managers left out crucial facts during this week's arguments. Jami Floyd, host and legal editor at WNYC New York Public Radio, and Ryan Goodman, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

‘Right matters and the truth matters’: Read Adam Schiff’s history-making impeachment trial speech

Thursday evening marked the end of a second long day on the Senate floor in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Democratic officials presented the evidence to America, detailing how and why Donald Trump must be removed from office. The highlight was lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff's powerful 30-minute argument that closed out the day.

Schiff once again detailed some of the steps Trump and his White House took to obstruct the inquiry into his abuses of power. He underlined how the Trump White House went to his handpicked attorney general, William Barr, and got him to refuse to release evidence to Congress. “I know what the law says and it says you shall, doesn't say you may, doesn't say you might, doesn't say you can if you like to, doesn't say if the president doesn't object—it says you shall.” Just like at every other turn in this saga, it’s only because of the Democratic Party’s insistence that a whistleblower’s warnings be heeded that we even discovered how deep our executive branch’s corruption goes. 

Finally, Rep. Schiff finished with the powerful, already often-quoted conclusion of his argument, where he tied together why Donald Trump must be removed from office with what’s at stake for America. The final nine minutes of Schiff’s speech is transcribed below.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: But even now, our ally can’t get his foot in the door. Even now, our ally can’t get his foot in the door. And this brings me to the last point I want to make tonight, which is, when we’re done, we believe that we will have made the case overwhelmingly of the president’s guilt. That is, he’s done what he’s charged with. He withheld the money. He withheld the meeting. He used it to coerce Ukraine to do these political investigations. He covered it up. He obstructed us. He’s trying to obstruct you and he’s violated the Constitution. But I want to address one other thing tonight. Okay, he’s guilty. Okay, he’s guilty. Does he really need to be removed? Does he really need to be removed? We have an election coming up. Does he really need to be removed? He’s guilty. You know, is there really any doubt about this? Do we really have any doubt about the facts here? Does anybody really question whether the president is capable of what he’s charged with? No one is really making the argument “Donald Trump would never do such a thing,” because of course we know that he would, and of course we know that he did. It’s a somewhat different question though to ask, okay, it’s pretty obvious whether we can say it publicly or we can’t say it publicly. We all know what we’re dealing here with this president, but does he really need to be removed? And this is why he needs to be removed.

Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies. He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own FBI director. He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own national security advisers. When all of them were telling him this Ukraine 2016 stuff is kooky, crazy Russian propaganda, he chose not to believe them. He chose to believe Rudy Giuliani. That makes him dangerous to us, to our country. That was Donald Trump’s choice. Now, why would Donald Trump believe a man like Rudy Giuliani over a man like Christopher Wray? Okay. Why would anyone in their right mind believe Rudy Giuliani over Christopher Wray? Because he wanted to and because what Rudy was offering him was something that would help him personally. And what Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the truth. What Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the information he needed to protect his country and its elections, but that’s not good enough. What’s in it for him? What’s in it for Donald Trump? This is why he needs to be removed.

Now, you may be asking how much damage can he really do in the next several months until the election? A lot. A lot of damage. Now, we just saw last week, a report that Russia tried to hack or maybe did hack Burisma. Okay. I don’t know if they got in. I’m trying to find out. My colleagues on the Intel Committee, House and Senate, we’re trying to find out, did the Russians get in? What are the Russian plans and intentions? Well, let’s say they got in and let’s say they start dumping documents to interfere in the next election.

Let’s say they start dumping some real things they hack from Burisma. Let’s say they start dumping some fake things they didn’t hack from Burisma, but they want you to believe they did. Let’s say they start blatantly interfering in our election again to help Donald Trump. Can you have the least bit of confidence that Donald Trump will stand up to them and protect our national interest over his own personal interest? You know you can’t, which makes him dangerous to this country. You know you can’t. You know you can’t count on him. None of us can. None of us can. What happens if China got the message? Now you can say, he’s just joking of course. He didn’t really mean China should investigate the Bidens. You know that’s no joke.

Now maybe you could have argued three years ago when he said, “Hey Russia, if you’re listening, hack Hillary’s emails.” Maybe you could give him a freebie and say he was joking, but now we know better. Hours after he did that Russia did, in fact, try to hack Hillary’s emails. There’s no Mulligan here when it comes to our national security. So what if China does overtly or covertly start to help the Trump campaign? You think he’s going to call them out on it or you think he’s going to give them a better trade deal on it? Can any of us really have the confidence that Donald Trump will put his personal interests ahead of the national interests? Is there really any evidence in this presidency that should give us the iron-clad confidence that he would do so?

You know you can’t count on him to do that. That’s the sad truth. You know you can’t count on him to do that. The American people deserve a president they can count on to put their interests first, to put their interests first. Colonel Vindman said, “Here, right matters. Here, right matters.” Well, let me tell you something, if right doesn’t matter, if right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn’t matter how brilliant the framers were. Doesn’t matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. Doesn’t matter how well-written the Oath of Impartiality is. If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. Framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves, if right and truth don’t matter. And you know that what he did was not right.

That’s what they do in the old country that Colonel Vindman’s father came from. Or the old country that my great grandfather came from, or the old countries that your ancestors came from, or maybe you came from. But here, right is supposed to matter. It’s what’s made us the greatest nation on earth. No Constitution can protect us, right doesn’t matter any more. And you know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country. You can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump. He’ll do it now. He’s done it before. He’ll do it for the next several months. He’ll do it in the election if he’s allowed to. This is why if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Because right matters and the truth matters.

Otherwise, we are lost.

You can watch Rep. Adam Schiff’s closing argument in three parts below.

x x YouTube Video

x x YouTube Video

x x YouTube Video

Trump’s defense begins opening arguments in impeachment trial: Live coverage #3

Donald Trump’s defense team previewed a very Donald Trump strategy during Tuesday’s procedural debate in the impeachment trial: lie, attack, ignore the facts. Now it’s time for a concentrated blast of that as they begin their opening arguments.

Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:00:17 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Philbin ends his character assault on Schiff, and hands off to Cipollone so he can continue the character attack on Schiff. Cipollone also tosses in claims that Democrats manufactured evidence, along with an obligatory attempt to “cancel the election.”

For some reason, Cipollone thinks that reading completely innocuous parts of the transcript really, really, really slowly makes for more impact.

And we’ve wrapped the coverage of Trump’s attorneys, thankfully, until Monday when things will surely be even more exciting. We’ve not yet heard what Alan Dershowitz has to say about the House managers’ underwear, Ken Starr hasn’t revealed any clothing stains, and Pam Bondi hasn’t accepted a bribe … that we know of. So there’s plenty left to do.

See you then.

Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:03:14 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Cipollone says all they’ve talked about today is “the facts.” Which means talking about overturning an election, attacking the intelligence community, character attacks on Adam Schiff, character attacks on the whistleblower and process arguments about why Congressional subpoenas are “invalid.” Plus support for Trump’s conspiracy theories.

You know. The facts.

And they’re outta there until Monday afternoon.

Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:08:20 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

What the opening of the Trump case illustrated was that they seem to have even less than previously suggested. Which could mean that the pre-puncturing done by the House managers caused some material to be left on the cutting room floor.

Although, the straight up repetition of already debunked nonsense, especially by Jay Sekulow, would indicate that the Trump attorneys wouldn’t shy away from making claims that were already known lies.

Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:09:33 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner Waiting for every Republican to spend time in front of the Fox camera being astonished by all the "new" information. Please folks, form an orderly queue. Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:10:29 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:12:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Start your countdown for when Trump tweets that the ratings for his attorneys were so much better than House managers. Unless he's already done it. Because ... ratings. They're what's important.

Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:15:20 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 · 5:23:15 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

BTW, when Pat Philbin made a claim that there's a connection between the whistleblower and Joe Biden, it may have seemed like a play to the fringes of fringedom. It’s not.

Consider this the warm-up act for an argument that the whole whistleblower complaint was designed to block the investigation into Burisma. Expect that exact claim to be made by Republicans, including Lindsey Graham, who is now calling for an investigation into the Bidens apart from the impeachment.