How desperate are Senate Republicans to silence Bolton? Desperate enough to throw away the republic

Posted on January 27, 2020 by Kerry Eleveld

Republicans don't give a damn about how dangerous Donald Trump is, or about the fact that he's selling our democracy to whichever foreign governments will help him get reelected. They are absolutely desperate not to hear directly from former national security adviser John Bolton. In fact, nothing could be worse than simply calling Bolton to testify under oath about what he knew and what he heard directly from Trump about withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into Trump’s domestic political opponents, the basis for Trump’s impeachment.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said that the Bolton account wasn't worth exploring because it was just a marketing stunt: “This looks like a marketing tactic to sell books is what it looks like to me.” Gee, John, why not find out by calling Bolton in and asking him?

Campaign Action

Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska prefers a statement to actual testimony: “It doesn’t take a subpoena to put out a statement. I think if Ambassador Bolton has something to say he could do that.” Also, Fischer is pretty sick of being asked about the biggest news of the day and likely even the entire impeachment trial so far: “Do you guys have memos on the same question to ask all the time? Just curious.”

Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri doesn't really care what the facts are—he's in Trump's camp no matter what: "I can’t imagine that anything he would have to say would change the outcome of the final vote."

Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming applied his blindfold to the "so-called blockbuster" Bolton report: "To me, the facts of the case remain the same."

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota echoed Barrasso’s nothing-to-see-here take: “I don’t think it changes the facts. ... I don’t personally see it as a game changer.”

And—wait for it—Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri is confused about what constitutes a first-hand witness: “Well, I don’t know. Is he a firsthand witness? I’m not sure.” LOL. Man, what a complete joker, unworthy of holding elected office—a proud moment for Missouri, no doubt.

And Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst—who's already declared her undying fealty to Trump and the White House’s distorted version of events—is waiting to hear White House lawyers declare the earth is flat once again so she can agree with them wholeheartedly: “I’m sure they will address this now, and we go from there.”

Yep, that may be the one truthful thing uttered so far by Republicans on Monday morning. The White House counsel will absolutely try to twist the Bolton revelations one way or the other. Asked by a chorus of reporters about the Bolton report Monday morning, Trump was unusually short on words. "False" was all he offered.

Senate Republicans were heading into an all-caucus meeting just before the impeachment trial resumes, and they will likely come out with a more tailored set of talking points intended to blunt the damage of the bomb that just dropped on them. They will also surely apply immense pressure on Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the only GOP senator to signal any interest whatsoever in hearing from Bolton. Romney called it “increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton.” That’s what counts for courage these days in the Republican Party.

Republicans play the ‘Obama did it too’ card on military assistance—and of course they’re lying

Posted on January 23, 2020 by Mark Sumner

The first statements from Donald Trump’s defense team in the impeachment trial in the Senate on Tuesday included multiple big, instantly refutable lies, such as White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s claim that no Republicans were allowed into the “secret hearings” held in the House, or that Republicans weren’t allowed to call witnesses. But among a laundry list of talking points disconnected from reality, there was one that stood out: the claim that Trump did nothing wrong because President Barack Obama also withheld funds, from Egypt.

Obama did withhold funds. He did so when, between the time Congress allocated funds and the time the Pentagon approved their release, military forces in Egypt mounted a coup. Not only were those funds not approved to be sent, not only did Obama notify Congress that they were being withheld, but members of Congress insisted that the funds not be turned over. That included pleas from Sen. Lindsey Graham to hold the funds. But as the House team continues to lay out its case, and Republicans wait for their chance, it appears that “Obama did it too” is going to be the go-to argument from Team Trump.

Overnight, Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted out a list of supposed holds placed by Obama (not all of which appear to be real). Then Sen. John Cornyn joined in, both on Twitter and in an interview, to expand the claim not just to Obama, but to administrations going back to Nixon. Neither Cornyn nor Blackburn claimed that Obama withheld funds so that he could twist the arm of a foreign leader so he’d give him a personal political advantage. So far. But it seems likely that they will, as the Obama-did-it-too meme becomes the latest attempt from the Republican side to distract from Trump’s crimes.

Of course, there’s more that Blackburn and Cornyn are ignoring than just the lack of a quid pro quo in any of Obama’s foreign assistance delays. Every aid package has qualifications that have to be met in order for the aid to be approved. Legislation authorizing foreign assistance routinely includes review by agencies that have to sign off that goals have been achieved in advance of the release. In the case of 2019 assistance to Ukraine, that responsibility was assigned to the Department of Defense, which completed its review on May 23 with a conclusion that Ukraine had met required goals on both fighting corruption and promoting democracy.

What happened in past delays was often simply that the certifying agencies found issues, or that, as in the case of Egypt, conditions on the ground had changed significantly between the time the legislation was passed and the time the funds were slated to go out. In some cases, the result was further review before funds were eventually released. In some cases, the result was a more prolonged delay: Egypt didn’t get any funds from the U.S. for almost two years, until the State Department was satisfied that the new president wasn’t just a puppet of the military. In every case, both Congress and the public were aware not just that there was a delay, but of the reasons for the delay.

In the case of Trump and Ukraine, the assistance was approved by the Department of Defense just two months after the election of a new Ukrainian president who ran on an anticorruption platform. Then Trump placed a hold on the funds in secret. He provided no reason for the delay. The DOD was instructed not to talk about the delay. Congress was not informed of the delay. No reason was ever given for the delay. And the delay remained in place until 1) the delay wasn’t just obvious, but also the subject of public articles, 2) multiple senators contacted the White House expressing concern, 3) three separate House investigations were opened, 4) the White House counsel informed Trump that the whistleblower report was circulating, and 5) the intelligence community inspector general determined that the whistleblower report was urgent. Then Trump released the funds, and Republicans began to make up explanations for the hold—explanations that shifted on a nearly daily basis during the House impeachment hearings.

Other foreign assistance packages have been delayed. For good reasons. With notification of and cooperation from Congress.

Try again, Republicans. Try again.

Republicans swoon with fake outrage after Nadler calls a cover-up a cover-up

Posted on January 22, 2020 by Laura Clawson

It looks like the accurate characterization of Republican plans for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump as a cover-up is getting under some Republican skin. After Rep. Jerry Nadler dared to call a cover-up a cover-up on the Senate floor late Tuesday night, Republicans are clutching their pearls and declaring themselves offended in a blatant effort to change the subject from the cover-up to how Democrats are mean.

“It was so insulting and outrageous it was a shock to all of us,” Sen. John Cornyn huffed to CNN producer Ali Zaslav.

”They're on a crusade to destroy this man, and they don't care what they destroyed in the process of trying to destroy Donald Trump... I'm covering up nothing. I'm expose your hatred of this president, to the point that you would destroy the institution,” Sen. Lindsey Graham ranted.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski declared herself “offended.” Sen. Ron Johnson said Nadler was “insulting” and “completely inappropriate.” Senate Majority Whip John Thune called it “not helpful to [the Democrats’] cause,” a classic claim from Republicans: It’s not that they’re strenuously trying to change the subject from the facts of the case with an attack on Democrats; it’s that Democrats committed an unforced error.

Get them their fainting couches and smelling salts, now. Members of a historically norm-breaking, institution-dismantling party are just overcome with shock at someone daring to identify their actions for what they are. Or it’s all a strategy of distraction. Hmmm ...