Category: Recommended

Nixon backers’ obits suggest history won’t be kind to those who don’t support Trump impeachment

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Ryan Goodman, editor in chief over at Just Security, published a very interesting piece on Wednesday. In it, Goodman goes back through history and looks at the 10 Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who voted both for and against the impeachment of then-President Richard Nixon in 1974. More importantly, he looks at their obituaries to see whether his backers’ decisions to support a clearly unhinged and corrupt politician were remembered. According to Goodman, not only was it mentioned in these long-deceased officials’ obituaries, but it was the defining moment of their careers. Reading some of obituary headlines, you begin to get the scope.

“Former Rep. Joseph Maraziti, 78, Defender of Nixon on Watergate”

“Wiley Mayne; House GOP Member Who Voted Not to Impeach Nixon”

“Sandman, Nixon Supporter, Dies”

“Charles Wiggins, 72, Dies; Led Nixon’s Defense in Hearings”

Alternately, Goodman looked at the obituaries of Republican congressmen who voted in favor of impeaching Nixon. Those GOP officials’ careers were also definitively marked by their decision to break with party rank-and-file to make the right decision. 

Just Security is a U.S. national security law and policy think tank and media outlet. 

Lev Parnas says there were ‘many quid pro quos’ and Trump knew ‘everything’ going on

Posted on by Lauren Floyd

On his way to listen to the Senate impeachment trial for President Donald Trump, Lev Parnas, indicted associate of the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, hinted Wednesday that there is much more to the impeachment allegations against the president, reports CNN. So it’s not just the July phone call in which Trump allegedly attempted to trade military aid to Ukraine for info on a political rival. Taking questions from surrounding reporters as he walked, Lev Parnas can be seen on video saying: "The president knew everything that was going on in Ukraine, and he put pressure, and there was many quid pro quos."

Parnas went on to say “a lot” happened before the call in question July 25. “I think there’s a lot of evidence,” he said. But when asked to detail that evidence, he, responded: “I think I should leave that to when I’m under oath because I think that would be more powerful than just giving different tidbits. I think I’ve said enough.”

Parnas has been submitting files, text messages, and audio recordings to assist House impeachment investigators, CNN reported. In one recording from a dinner April 2018, Trump can be heard demanding the removal of Marie Yovanovich, who at the time was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, the news network reported. When Parnas was asked whether he thought additional recordings submitted in the trial should be made public, he said: “I want everything to be made public.” 

x

Bribery. The crime is bribery. Say it

Posted on by Hunter

The Trump defense against impeachment is premised on layers upon layers of nonsense, but the notion that Donald Trump's act—suspension of military aid to a foreign nation until its government announced an investigation of his just-announced domestic political opponent—does not constitute a crime is among the most blatant.

Bribery. The crime is that Donald Trump demanded a personal bribe in exchange for an official act of his office. And soliciting a bribe is, unequivocally, a criminal act.

The defense theory that Trump was allowed to target a specific political opponent for an "investigation" as a supposed foreign policy is inherently corrupt. There is no other word for it. Criminal defender Alan Dershowitz went further still, claiming that if Trump believed that his winning reelection was genuinely in the public's best interest, then any action he took to sabotage his opponents would be legal and allowable. In every other public context, this is recognized unequivocally as an act of corruption.

Ex-House Republican Chris Collins was indicted for insider trading—using private information to make stock trades meant to benefit himself. Ex-Rep. Duncan Hunter was indicted for stealing, outright, campaign funds for his own personal gain. The then-governor of Illinois, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, was impeached, removed, and imprisoned for seeking to trade political appointments, an official act of his office, for personal bribes.

It is Blagojevich's case that is a close analogue to what Trump himself did. Trump unilaterally delayed military aid allocated by the House and Senate to a foreign ally. Trump distanced his White House from that government, refusing a meeting the newly elected Ukrainian leader considered of utmost importance in signaling to Russia that his nation had the support of the United States. He withheld both acts, indisputably now, to procure an announcement from the Ukrainian government that his potential election opponent was now being investigated for corruption.

That is soliciting a bribe. Trump could have requested that his Department of Justice "investigate" his election opponent itself; it would still likely be a crime. Trump could have made the request without using the tools of his office to pressure the desperate Ukrainian government into compliance; doing so in his official capacity as president would still likely be a crime. Trump did the most corrupt of all versions, however.

Trump demanded that Ukraine announce two specific investigations, one of Biden and one promoting an anti-Democratic Party conspiracy theory boosted by the same Russian government known to have targeted Trump’s election opponents in the past. The only investigations Trump demanded were focused on his domestic political opponents.

Trump coordinated the effort not through the United States' robust law enforcement and foreign policy agencies, but through his personal lawyer, working with now-indicted Ukrainian criminals, coordinating "evidence"-gathering with a known-to-be-corrupt Ukrainian official seeking to trade that evidence to Trump's team in exchange for getting his own criminal indictment squashed by Trump's Department of Justice. This gaggle of criminals was elevated above the official United States foreign policy apparatus, and quickly succeeded in getting a member of that foreign policy apparatus, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, removed from her position by convincing Trump she was a political, not a policy, opponent.

Trump ordered multiple members of his Cabinet to take official actions, actions determined at the time to be baseless and soon afterwards judged to be illegal, intended to put maximum pressure on Ukraine to comply in providing the “favor’ he’d asked for. He ordered his subordinates to perform official acts meant to extort Ukraine into compliance—literally at gunpoint.

Trump provided no public explanation for his acts, Trump's subordinates provided their own government subordinates no private explanations for those acts; an after-the-fact effort was launched to investigate any possible rationale that could be offered for his acts; White House officials swiftly moved to conceal his acts as numerous White House and government officials alerted White House lawyers of the potentially criminal nature of those acts; and when Congress eventually learned of his acts, Trump offered no explanation, but instead ordered all agencies to refuse document requests, subpoenas for testimony, and other basic tools of oversight.

Donald Trump sought a bribe from Ukraine. Donald Trump demanded that the government of Ukraine grant him two very specific personal favors, both targeting his election enemies, and withheld official acts of his government to procure them. Trump ordered his administration to take official acts to obstruct congressional investigation of those acts.

Seeking something of personal value in exchange for performing an act as a public official is seeking a bribe. It is not hard to understand. It does not matter if it is called a new "foreign policy" in which personal bribes are, now, supposedly both official policy and good for the country.

It's bribery. Just say it. And every Republican senator either knows full well that Trump was soliciting a bribe or, by denying it, has indicated that they too are sufficiently corrupt to consider demanding precisely the same thing in exchange for doing their own official duties.

That is likely the case. It is evident, at this point, that nearly every Republican senator both stipulates that Trump did exactly what John Bolton claims to be an eyewitness to and is taking the official position that members of their party are indeed allowed to solicit such "favors" without repercussion or recourse. But it is unambiguously bribery, and each of them is now conspiring in that act.

Drip, drip, drip: Top House Democrat reveals Bolton expressed deep concern about Trump, Ukraine

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

As Senate Republicans attempt to recover from their tailspin in arguments over calling former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, new information emerged Wednesday directly refuting Trump's assertion that Bolton never expressed concern about his Ukraine policy at the time.

In a statement Wednesday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel relayed that Bolton "strongly implied" in a Sept. 23 phone call with him that Trump's ouster of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was improper. “On that call, Ambassador Bolton suggested to me — unprompted — that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,” Engel said of a phone call between the two men. "He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.”

In an attempt to dismiss Bolton's bombshell book excerpts, Trump tweeted Tuesday night that Bolton had said "NOTHING" about his Ukraine policy when Bolton was ousted from the White House last September. "Why didn’t John Bolton complain about this 'nonsense' a long time ago," Trump tweeted. Well, good news, Trump! He did. In fact, Bolton's use of the word "improper" implies that he may have even wondered whether Trump had done something illegal. 

Engel said he had contacted Bolton following his departure from the White House to thank him for his service when Bolton offered the information about Yovanovitch unsolicited. Engel added that he didn't speak publicly about Bolton's disclosure at the time, although he did share the information with his colleagues who were running investigations of Trump. "It was one of the reasons we wished to hear from Ambassador Bolton, under oath, in a formal setting," Engel said. Of course, Bolton refused that invitation at the time.

Now, however, Bolton has offered to testify under oath if subpoenaed by the Senate, leaving Senate Republicans in quite the bind after leaked excerpts of his book revealed that Trump told him directly that he wanted aid withheld from Ukraine until its officials undertook the investigations he wanted.

As Engel noted, Bolton has made clear that he has "more to say on the issue," and he deserves the chance to say it, particularly since Trump has smeared his account. "It's telling that, of all people, John Bolton is now the target of right-wing ire," Engel said, adding that the smears have only heightened the need to hear his testimony. 

Republicans have surrendered on Trump’s guilt. They’re making a last stand with ‘So what if he did?’

Posted on by Mark Sumner

Reporting on whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has secured enough support to shut down the possibility of witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump is all over the map. Some reports have insisted that “10 or 12” Republicans are actually looking fearfully at the overwhelming public opinion in favor of witnesses, while other reports have been just as insistent that McConnell has waved enough head-pikes to successfully keep rebellion clear of dastardly facts.

But whether or not Bolton ever takes the stand in the Senate, one thing has become absolutely clear: Republicans have completely given up on the idea of claiming that Donald Trump did not extort Ukraine to gain a personal political advantage. Forget the “perfect call.” Republicans up and down the line may still be afraid to gain the Twit-ire of Trump by declaring his guilt, but the official position has moved completely away from the idea that Trump did nothing wrong and solidly into camp “So what?”

To see where Republicans are takes no more than reading the first sentence of this quote from Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana: “Let’s say it’s true, okay? Dershowitz last night explained that if you’re looking at it from a constitutional point of view, that that is not something that is impeachable.” The explanation of Alan Dershowitz, a criminal attorney playing constitutional expert on TV (with underwear on), was clearly ridiculous on its face, and hundreds of experts have said so explicitly.

But the terrible fact for a Republican Party facing a severe fact shortage is that the public is more easily confused on this point than they are on Trump’s guilt. In other words, every real constitutional expert in the nation is united around the idea that abuse of power and obstruction of justice are valid reasons for a politician to be impeached and removed. But it’s easier to pretend that that is not true than it is to keep pretending that Donald Trump did not commit extortion in the face of not just Bolton’s testimony, but also the mass of evidence presented by House managers.

Bolton’s evidence may be the tipping point, but Republicans are aware that the case against Trump has been both overwhelming and compelling from the outset—which is why the “defense” of Trump was primarily focused not on proving his innocence, but on pretending that extorting foreign involvement in an election is a perfectly valid activity.

Now, no matter how Republicans eventually vote, no matter how hard Trump tries to suppress Bolton’s manuscript, it’s clear enough that this information is going to come out. Which makes it absolutely pointless to defend Trump on the basis that he did nothing wrong.

That’s why even Lindsey Graham has given up on sticking his fingers in his ears and pretending that he has heard no evidence against Trump. Instead, Graham says, “For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office.”

”Let’s say it’s true, okay?” says Braun. ”For the sake of argument,” says Graham. If there have ever been bigger verbal white flags, they were probably waved on a battleship where someone was signing a treaty of surrender.

Republicans aren’t going to the “So what?” position because they feel it’s strong. They know it’s not strong. They’re going there because it is all they have left.

Ted Cruz: “Quid pro quo doesn’t matter. It’s a red herring. It doesn’t matter if there was a quid pro quo or not.”

x

White House reportedly issues ‘formal threat’ to block John Bolton from publishing book

Posted on by Laura Clawson

The Trump White House is trying to stop former national security adviser John Bolton’s book from being published, CNN is reporting. The “formal threat” comes in the form of a letter, CNN’s sources say, but none of the parties involved—the White House, Bolton himself, or his publisher, Simon & Schuster—commented.

As Karen Tumulty tweeted, get ready for the advertising campaign dubbing this “the book the White House doesn’t want you to read,” but what the United States needs is not Bolton’s book, it’s Bolton’s testimony.

Bolton is a warmonger with blood on his hands and decades of faithful service to the Republican cause. But here, he has information the country needs to hear, not by giving him money for a book but under oath in the impeachment trial. The White House threat is not, most likely, about the book itself, either. It’s about sending a message to Republican senators not to vote to hear him, and to make regular people think of him as tainted.

The White House needs to discredit Bolton somehow, with polls showing big majorities in support of witnesses at the impeachment trial. Putting a cloud over him separate from the Senate vote on witnesses is the first move. There will be more—but all the people watching the White House campaign against Bolton need to remember that it’s not about him. It’s about what he witnessed Donald Trump saying and doing during his time as Trump’s close adviser.

Update:

x

John Bolton is a warmongering jackass who just happens to have information vital to the nation

Posted on by Mark Sumner

No Democrat likes John Bolton. The guy is an everywhere-hawk whose answer to issues of bombing, civilian deaths, and torture are more, so? and sure. That he has evidence relevant to the impeachment of Donald Trump does not rescind his lifelong achievement award for being a warmongering jackass.

When The New York Times reports that Bolton’s world has “turned upside down” on a wave of Democratic support, it’s being about as accurate in its analysis as Trump’s defense team is. Yeah, Republicans have discovered a serious hate for a man they’ve been standing up as the foreign policy expert for two decades. That doesn’t make him a friend to Democrats. He’s not even “the enemy of my enemy,” because on 99.95% of all topics, Bolton hangs out somewhere in the shadows to the far right of even Trump. Democrats don’t want Bolton; they just want the truth.

If the wholesale abandonment of everything even resembling principle in order to embrace Donald Trump had not already made it clear that Republicans would turn on John Bolton … well, they’re doing it. The same characters who pushed Bolton for the U.N. and even touted him as a possible presidential contender are lining up to say that he’s an idiot who never should have been allowed near a whiteboard. Because that’s what they do.

Bolton wasn’t forced on Trump as some kind of consolation prize for the sad armchair warriors of the world. He sprang back into the White House from the launching pad of Fox News, where his familiar mustache waggled regularly from the Fox & Friends couch or from Hannity’s split screen. For two decades, Bolton has been the go-to guy for pounding Democrats in the one area where, incredibly enough, polls show the Republican Party has had a regular advantage over Democrats: national security. If it moved, Bolton was ready to bomb it. Also if it didn’t move.

This isn’t a new thing for Bolton. In his twenties, Bolton was a Vietnam War supporter—a position he proudly upheld from the safe ranks of a stateside National Guard assignment. He was a minor, but enthusiastic, player in Iran-Contra. He was a key figure behind the “Axis of Evil” idea that made half the planet legitimate targets for U.S. weapons, and didn’t just support bombing Iraq over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, but also championed the idea of smashing up nations because they had the potential to develop WMDs. Bolton generated friction in the George W. Bush administration because he came down to the right of Dick Cheney and was accused of using his U.N. role to actively sabotage peace negotiations. That Iran has been the target of Bolton’s unbroken desire for let’s-see-it-burn makes it just one of many.

For extra irony, Bolton was also the chief author of the Reagan administration’s broad defense of executive privilege in covering up the deals made in securing the role of United States chief justice for William Rehnquist. Even during the impeachment proceedings, Bolton has made it clear that he has nothing but disdain for Congress, for the Democratic Party, for House leadership, and for the public. 

There is not one #$@$ing reason for any Democrat to like John Bolton. And none do. 

It’s just that Bolton is a fact witness in an impeachment case. He has already said that he has direct evidence of Donald Trump’s motivation in withholding military assistance to Ukraine. He may have equally vital evidence regarding Trump’s actions in other matters in which he has placed personal gain above national security. He has made it clear that he will provide this evidence if asked.

Democrats don’t have to like John Bolton. They just have to like having the facts. 

Trump and McConnell push hard to cement impeachment cover-up

Posted on by Laura Clawson

The Trump White House and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned an impeachment trial cover-up, and they’re not about to let former national security adviser John Bolton mess that up. The plan was to call no witnesses and have Senate Republicans vote to acquit Trump as quickly as possible. That plan took a hit when reports came out that Bolton’s upcoming book described Trump telling him that he was holding up military aid to Ukraine in a demand for investigations into his political rivals—but that just means McConnell and Trump will have to work a little harder to keep the cover-up in place.

When McConnell told Senate Republicans, in a private meeting, that he didn’t have the votes locked down to block witnesses in the trial, it wasn’t an admission of defeat. It was, sources told The New York Times, ”a pointed signal that it was time for rank-and-file senators to fall in line.”

Similarly, the White House is telling Republicans that allowing witnesses “could drag things out for months” and be “tough on all incumbents up for reelection,” a “Republican close to the White House” told Politico. Nice Senate seat you’ve got. Shame if anything messed that up.

Sen. John Cornyn told The Washington Post’s Robert Costa that he was “pretty confident” Republicans would keep the trial from including witnesses. (You know, keep it from being even an imitation of a fair trial.)

According to Sen. Kevin Cramer, “Some people are sincerely exploring all the avenues.” Some people. Others, not so much. And virtually every Republican in the Senate is under strong pressure to stop exploring and definitely stop being sincere—virtually every, and not every-every, only because Sen. Susan Collins gets a pass on appearing to vote against McConnell once he knows he already has the votes he needs locked down.

Republicans do not want the American people to know the truth, and they’ll do whatever they can to keep that from happening.

Lindsey Graham supports scheme to review Bolton manuscript in secret, prevent witnesses at trial

Posted on by Mark Sumner

On Monday, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma offered nervous Republicans an exit ramp from the dilemma posed by former national security adviser John Bolton. Rather than have Bolton appear as a witness in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, Republicans would instead have a chance to look at the manuscript of Bolton’s upcoming book, which claims that Bolton has knowledge as a firsthand witness to Trump’s alleged actions, in secret, and then determine how to proceed.

On Tuesday, Lindsey Graham signed on to this scheme, calling for the manuscript to be made available in ”a classified setting.” Not only is this an obvious ploy to prevent Bolton from ever answering questions in front of Mitch McConnell’s personally controlled camera; it also means that Republicans, after a trial in which they have constantly accused Democrats of changing the rules to gather evidence in “secret,” are genuinely looking to change the rules … so they can examine evidence. In secret.

Bolton has already volunteered to appear before the Senate if subpoenaed, and over the weekend The New York Times revealed that Bolton’s upcoming book details a conversation in which Donald Trump explicitly connects military assistance for Ukraine to extorting an investigation by that country into Joe Biden. Keeping that information out of the Senate trial has become a growing challenge, as polls show swelling support for the testimony of Bolton and other potential witnesses.

The idea of a secret review of the manuscript offers Republicans several attractive options. First, they can emerge from the classified setting to declare that there’s no there there, no matter what’s actually contained in the text. Second, they can condemn Bolton’s text as a money grab from someone whom Fox News is now repositioning from a longtime Republican hardliner to a “deep state agent” who is part of a conspiracy featuring former FBI Director James Comey. Finally, Bolton’s manuscript can be cherry-picked for both complimentary statements about Trump and derogatory comments about Democrats.

If this scheme goes forward, expect Graham to simultaneously claim that Bolton’s manuscript is a smear against Trump and that it says bad, bad things about Nancy Pelosi/Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama. But most of all, expect Graham and other Republicans to claim that, after reviewing the manuscript, they find no reason for Bolton to answer any more questions. Especially when Trump is going to fight Bolton’s appearance.

Then Republicans can demand that Joe Biden appear. After all, they’ll say, they heard from Bolton.