Senate Impeachment Hearings

[coorslite21]

19 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Hopefully Bolton and others will get a chance to shed light on some of those concerns, as the vast majority of Americans polled confirm (Most Recent Fox News Poll link below).   Again, I'm no constitutional scholar, even one that flip flops on his stance, but pretty sure a pOTUS seeking help from a foreign government to investigate a political rival in our domestic politics is strictly forbidden, exactly what the framers were hoping to avoid for the future of our republic.  

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/26/trump-impeachment-fox-news-poll/4581020002/

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Try this one......    CL

 

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation16.html

 

[bostonangler]

4 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Try this one......    CL

 

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation16.html

 

 

Or he and his folks could testify under oath and show the documents in question...

 

Doesn't it make you pause for one minute that they refuse to cooperate?

 

Don't you question the obvious lies about knowing people, or the fact so many people have put their careers and reputations on the line to testify... Are all these people lying and Trump is the only one telling the truth?

 

Do you really believe that?

 

B/A 

[Shabibilicious]

9 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Try this one......    CL

 

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation16.html

 

 

Again, even after I finish reading this, I still won't be a constitutional scholar.  The first five paragraphs of which showed massive amounts of subjective viewpoints and scrambling. The bigger point is, why won't Trump allow his handlers to speak?...any questions that could effect national security will be barred anyway.  Every American should want to know what really happened here.  And if they need to question the Bidens, then do it....I want to know the truth, all of it....as we all should.  Men, under the protection of "innocent until proven guilty" have nothing to hide.

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

27 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Again, even after I finish reading this, I still won't be a constitutional scholar.  The first five paragraphs of which showed massive amounts of subjective viewpoints and scrambling. The bigger point is, why won't Trump allow his handlers to speak?...any questions that could effect national security will be barred anyway.  Every American should want to know what really happened here.  And if they need to question the Bidens, then do it....I want to know the truth, all of it....as we all should.  Men, under the protection of "innocent until proven guilty" have nothing to hide.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

The Trump team believes this has been a complete railroad job......and if you look at the 3 year history of impeachment war drums....you can understand why......The thought may be.....by even responding you give it credibility.......

 

Even in impeachment....it should be innocent until proven guilty.........Pelosi and Schiff have done a terrible job of proving National Security was endangered by with holding funds......That Trumps main/only intend for asking for  Biden investigation was to gain political gain......(pretty hard to prove).....and obstruction of Congress.....the Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue......Exective Privilege was the winner...

 

Like I say.....let Bolton speak.....no one knows what he'll say.......even if funds were held for a purpose......even if that purpose was to expose corruption.......many previous Presidents have used funding to leverage other countries to fall in line.....just how it works...

 

Bring on the witnesses.....longer it goes....the worst it is for the Presidential hopefuls......Biden wins the Primary.......and the entire history of the Biden family corruption comes out....$Billions for family members......wonder who has that info.......(weren't the Clinton's involved in digging up dirt in Ukraine)

 

Witness Schiff and Whistleblower should testify if they decide to call witnesses....

 

They won't though.....there will be some on the left who will vote against witnesses.....JMO

CL

 

[Shabibilicious]

4 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

The Trump team believes this has been a complete railroad job......and if you look at the 3 year history of impeachment war drums....you can understand why......The thought may be.....by even responding you give it credibility.......

 

Even in impeachment....it should be innocent until proven guilty.........Pelosi and Schiff have done a terrible job of proving National Security was endangered by with holding funds......That Trumps main/only intend for asking for  Biden investigation was to gain political gain......(pretty hard to prove).....and obstruction of Congress.....the Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue......Exective Privilege was the winner...

 

Like I say.....let Bolton speak.....no one knows what he'll say.......even if funds were held for a purpose......even if that purpose was to expose corruption.......many previous Presidents have used funding to leverage other countries to fall in line.....just how it works...

 

Bring on the witnesses.....longer it goes....the worst it is for the Presidential hopefuls......Biden wins the Primary.......and the entire history of the Biden family corruption comes out....$Billions for family members......wonder who has that info.......(weren't the Clinton's involved in digging up dirt in Ukraine)

 

Witness Schiff and Whistleblower should testify if they decide to call witnesses....

 

They won't though.....there will be some on the left who will vote against witnesses.....JMO

CL

 

 

Once again, I'm not disputing most of that.  Quid pro quos are absolutely a norm in politics....the difference lies in Trump involving a foreign entity in that quid pro quo to investigate his political rival.  We keep going round and round about this and we keep coming right back to this very point......that Trump supporters leave out the "dirt on a political rival from a foreign government" part when discussing the often used *** for tat as being the norm.  You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this very important part, CL.  

 

GO RV, then BV  

[Shabibilicious]

News

Romney says Bolton revelations make it 'increasingly likely' Senate will call witnesses

Jon Ward

Senior Political Correspondent

,

Yahoo News•January 27, 2020

 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

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.

Sen. Mitt Romney and John Bolton. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: AP, Patrick Semansky/AP)

The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Bolton’s new book, due out in March, includes a firsthand account of Trump telling him he was holding back nearly $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine until the government there announced investigations into Joe Biden and the 2016 election.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, tweeted that “[t]he reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.”

Even one of the president’s staunchest defenders, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., indicated that momentum was building toward calling Bolton and potentially other witnesses whose testimony Democrats have been demanding.

"If there is a desire and decision by the Senate to call Democratic witnesses, then at a minimum the Senate should allow President @realDonaldTrump to call all relevant witnesses he has requested,” Graham tweeted. 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-bolton-revelations-make-it-increasingly-likely-senate-will-call-witnesses-155904850.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[bostonangler]

What are they afraid of??? Truth?

 

B/A

[Shabibilicious]

Trump and Rudy Giuliani slam Bolton, question his manhood after book excerpt report

 

Peter Weber  The Week•January 27, 2020

 

 

President Trump responded early Monday to revelations Sunday evening that former National Security Adviser John Bolton wrote in an unpublished book he witnessed first-hand Trump linking frozen Ukraine military aid to Kyiv helping investigate Trump's Democratic rivals, including Joe Biden. "I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens," Trump tweeted, adding that if "Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book."

Trump may have a point there. Right after The New York Times reported on Bolton's recollection of Trump's Ukraine quid pro quo:

 

Brian Stelter

 

✔@brianstelter

 

 

BREAKING: John Bolton's book, "The Room Where it Happened," is tentatively slated for release on March 17. The Amazon page just went live https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0847FZRBF/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Room+Where+it+Happened+bolton&qid=1580096266&sr=8-1 …

The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir

John Bolton served as National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump for 519 days. A seasoned public servant who had previously worked for Presidents Reagan, Bush #41, and Bush #43,  Bolton...

amazon.com

 

10:38 PM - Jan 26, 2020

 

 

 

Still, that doesn't mean Bolton is wrong. He says he is willing to testify about Ukraine in Trump's impeachment trial, and several observers noted that Trump could also volunteer to swear he didn't offer the quid pro quo under oath.

The rest of Trump's tweeted statement held up the partial transcript of his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as "all the proof that is needed." In the transcript, Trump directly followed Zelensky's mention of U.S. miliary aid with "I would like you to do us a favor, though," the favor being an investigation into a baseless conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike and a hacked Democratic National Committee server; Trump then specifically asked Zelensky to "look into" Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Before Trump responded to Bolton's reported revelations, Rudy Giuliani — Trump's envoy and an undisputed central figure in Trump's Ukraine activities — said in a statement that he "used to like and respect John and tell people they were wrong about how irresponsible he was. I was wrong." He then suggested Bolton "wasn't man enough" to raise his concerns about Giuliani to his face.

 

John Santucci

 

✔@Santucci

 

 

More from Rudy - "He [Bolton] never once expressed concern to me. If he had confronted me, I could have explained it to him.....He [Bolton] wasn’t man enough to just ask and instead makes false and irresponsible barges to write a book about his failed career." https://twitter.com/Santucci/status/1221595723969507330 …

John Santucci

 

✔@Santucci

 

Giuliani reacts to Bolton report in the Times - telling me via text: "I used to like and respect John [Bolton] and tell people they were wrong about how irresponsible he was. I was wrong." More @ABC

 

7:50 PM - Jan 26, 2020

 

 

 

In Bolton's book, the Times reports, Bolton expressed concerns about Giuliani's Ukraine scheme with White House lawyers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Attorney General William Barr; the Justice Department confirmed the latter conversation Sunday night.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-rudy-giuliani-slam-bolton-074735720.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited January 27, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[coorslite21]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

Trump and Rudy Giuliani slam Bolton, question his manhood

 

So much drama......this is how the MSM stirs the pot.....creates division....

JMO.     CL

[coorslite21]

2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Once again, I'm not disputing most of that.  Quid pro quos are absolutely a norm in politics....the difference lies in Trump involving a foreign entity in that quid pro quo to investigate his political rival.  We keep going round and round about this and we keep coming right back to this very point......that Trump supporters leave out the "dirt on a political rival from a foreign government" part when discussing the often used *** for tat as being the norm.  You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this very important part, CL.  

 

GO RV, then BV  

 

And this is why you and I will be able to enjoy some great in person conversations in the future....we don't have to agree......but are respectful of each others views.......even in disagreement....     CL 

[Shabibilicious]

25 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

And this is why you and I will be able to enjoy some great in person conversations in the future....we don't have to agree......but are respectful of each others views.......even in disagreement....     CL 

 

I look forward to that opportunity....Of course, I'm not quite as optimistic about the future of Iraq and it's currency as many around these parts.  The situation in that country seems worse now than it has been for quite some time.....which seems certain to delay any future RV party.  As always, just my honest opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited January 27, 2020 by Shabibilicious

[Shabibilicious]

Politics

Even if the Senate does not remove Donald Trump, this impeachment is far from a mistake

David Rothkopf, Opinion contributor

January 28, 2020, 3:15 AM EST

 

 

There was more uncertainty about the outcome of Soviet show trials than there is about the charade taking place in the U.S. Senate. If we end up with no witnesses or evidence, the entire event will be revealed as what Fielding Mellish, the character played by Woody Allen in the movie “Bananas,” called “a travesty of a mockery of a sham.” But even if former national security adviser John Bolton's revelations motivate a tiny handful of Republican senators to challenge the order ordained by President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and vote for the semblance of normalcy that allowing a few witnesses to appear would bring, there is still little doubt about how all this is going to end up.

Trump is almost certain to be acquitted by the Senate — not because he is innocent (he is undoubtedly guilty of all he has been charged with and more), but because he has the votes. The senators are reminding us daily that theirs is not the impartial body the Founders imagined. They do not even take their oaths seriously. Nor, for that matter, do those who will reflexively vote to acquit Trump seem to care much about the precedents they will be setting or the damage they will be doing to the institution in which they serve, or to American democracy as a whole.

This raises a question that was heard before the impeachment inquiry began. Was it a mistake to proceed? Can nothing good come out of this process?

Value of accountability and facts 

I would most emphatically suggest that undertaking the impeachment investigation was far from a mistake. Even with the deck stacked against a just outcome by a GOP leadership that has lost sight of the most basic ideals associated with public service, much good has come out of this process and might come out of it even in the event of an acquittal.

First, the mere pursuit of the facts by the House has both underscored the importance of accountability, and it has, in a very systematic and public way, revealed the facts of this case. Trump, McConnell and the army of parrots spouting White House talking points may repeatedly say otherwise, but the president’s wrongdoing has been made crystal clear, and many of those detailing or corroborating it have been witnesses who are above reproach, objective and distinguished. Many of them are Trump appointees or apolitical career public servants. Today, poll after poll reveals that a substantial majority of Americans believe that the president is guilty of wrongdoing, and about half believe he should be removed from office.

Jay Sekulow, legal counsel for President Donald Trump, presents impeachment defense in the Senate in on Jan. 27, 2020.

This could fall on deaf ears for Republicans who until this week did not even seem to care that multiple polls also show that two-thirds or more of Americans want to hear from witnesses in this Senate trial. But the judgment of the court of public opinion will matter more to history and, likely, in the election to come, than the verdict in this trial. 

Consider the case of President Andrew Johnson, who was also spared conviction due to partisan support, but who was subsequently denied his party’s nomination and who is seen today, in the light of his impeachment and the behavior it highlighted, as one of our worst presidents ever. 

The political consequences in this fall’s presidential election will not be not insignificant, either. Trump barely won his last victory, eking it out with fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. Consider the latest polls and the evidence against the president revealed during the impeachment and ask: Might it tip the scales? Might it turn some against Trump who voted for him? Might it lead others not to vote, who would have cast their ballots in his favor? 

Profound breach of public trust 

It seems certain it will have some impact and, contrary to a popular theme before the House impeachment, there will be no backlash in Trump’s favor. There is absolutely zero evidence of a backlash and, indeed with every day of the trial, the numbers have looked worse or unchanged for Trump. He has gotten no bounce from outraged Republicans who want to defend a president’s right to seek foreign intervention on his behalf in an election … again.

Another potential political effect of the trial is that it will reveal Republican senators to care more about party loyalty than justice or the country. Not only is this clear based on the evidence to date, but it is quite likely that an acquittal could be followed by regular instances in which new evidence appears and underscores the Senate's profound breach of public trust in denying a modicum of justice or seriousness to this undertaking. This in turn might tip the scales against some senators in swing states which could, at least conceivably, return the Senate majority to Democrats this year.

Further, some of the cases raised in the impeachment regarding the power of the Congress to issue subpoenas may, ultimately, produce verdicts that shore up that power despite the president’s best efforts to negate it. And this groundwork could produce more effective investigations in the future including, if circumstances warrant, further impeachment investigations on other matters. 

There are many areas in which the president has abused power, obstructed justice and violated his oath of office. As House leaders have indicated, the possibility of additional impeachment action remains.

Truth now clear for voters and history

Trump will hail his acquittal as a vindication much as he did the Mueller report’s conclusions. But just as was the case with the Mueller report, the people and history are wise to this tactic. The Mueller report was, particularly in the area of obstruction of justice, damning. The Senate trial has already demonstrated the corruption endemic to this administration. 

An acquittal, it must be acknowledged, may also be seen as giving Trump license to continue his bad behavior and supporting dangerous precedents, like the deeply un-American, anti-democratic notions that the president is above the law or that Congress is not a coequal branch of government. These great risks are not to be minimized. They are ones McConnell and Trump’s lawyers have invited on behalf of a president and an administration seemingly committed to advancing not the ideals of the Founders, but the aspirations of a would-be autocrat. 

The entire nation must fight to ensure that this “travesty of a mockery of a sham” does not permanently damage the United States and the institutions upon which it depends. But it is quite possible, for all the reasons cited above, that even with an acquittal, consequences of this impeachment process will ensure that the defense of our democracy is successful.

Thanks to the House-led impeachment effort, the truth about the corruption of this president and the Trump years will be much more clear than would have been the case without it, both for voters in November and for posterity. That is in all of our interests and will be long after the White House press releases, unctuous pronouncements of the majority leader and tweets of the president are long forgotten.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-senate-does-not-remove-081506438.html

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

In wake of Bolton book news, White House allies say Trump lawyers bungled defense

Jon Ward and Michael Isikoff

Yahoo News•January 27, 2020

 

Reports that John Bolton has written a firsthand account of the president’s direct involvement in withholding aid to Ukraine has left some Republicans confused and angry over the legal strategy by the president’s defense team — which has devoted much of its arguments in the Senate impeachment trial to arguing that no such firsthand evidence existed.

One Republican operative who advises the White House said he was “flabbergasted at how stupidly they have handled this.”

Trump attorney Mike Purpura argued Saturday that “not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else.”

Purpura repeated that claim on Monday afternoon, saying that “anyone who spoke to the president” said there was no pressure campaign on Ukraine.

That assertion echoes what the president’s legal team argued in its legal brief filed a week ago: “House Democrats’ claims are built entirely on speculation from witnesses who had no direct knowledge about anything and who never even spoke to the President about this matter.”

The disclosure in the New York Times Sunday night directly contradicts the arguments of the president’s lawyers, who said in their brief that this is “the central fact in this case.” Bolton, Trump’s former security adviser, has written in his forthcoming memoir about having just such a conversation with the president last August.

“This just completely washes away Purpura’s whole argument,” the White House adviser said. “WTF. He misled the Senate.”

Mike Purpura, counsel to the president, at the impeachment trial in the Senate on Saturday. (Screengrab: Senate TV via Yahoo News)

The first of two articles of impeachment in the Senate trial accuses Trump of withholding military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation that could discredit former Vice President Joe Biden.

The House impeachment inquiry heard from numerous witnesses who testified that such a pressure campaign was undertaken by the administration, but none of them had direct evidence that implicated Trump personally.

Bolton claims to have that firsthand knowledge, according to reports about his manuscript.

Bolton’s lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, provided a manuscript of Bolton’s forthcoming book to the White House on Dec. 30, weeks before the Senate impeachment trial began.

The Republican who advises the White House predicted there now may be no way for the White House to prevent Bolton from testifying. The adviser said the cardinal sin by the president's lawyers was not finding out what was in Bolton's book and addressing it in their opening remarks on Saturday.

 

President Trump in the Oval Office in 2018 with then-national security adviser John Bolton looking on. (Photo: Evan Vucci/AP)

It is not known who at the White House had access to the document, but at least one former top executive branch attorney, Jack Goldsmith, said a presidential administration “often circulates manuscripts submitted for [prepublication] review widely, including to political officials, and it often asks for deletions for reasons having nothing to do [with] disclosure of classified info.”

Another Republican operative who speaks regularly with the White House said the upshot of Bolton’s revelations will be to increase momentum toward calls for him to testify.

“I think it pushes at least four GOP senators to vote to call witnesses. They were soft before this little bombshell,” the Republican operative said.

There are 47 Democrats in the Senate. Together with at least four Republicans, they would make up a majority.

On the question of why the president’s lawyers relied so heavily on the absence of a firsthand account tying the president to the pressure on Ukraine, this operative said: “They all represent a serial liar. [You] never know what is really going on. This is how he ran his businesses.”

And indeed, the immediate reaction on Capitol Hill did seem to suggest that the Senate was moving toward the idea of calling at least Bolton to testify. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said it was “increasingly likely” that at least four Republicans would vote to call Bolton to appear before the Senate. 

_____

 

https://news.yahoo.com/in-wake-of-bolton-book-news-white-house-allies-say-trump-lawyers-bungled-defense-202407755.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

 

GO RV, then BV

[md11fr8dawg]

I LOVE this shiite!! First the Rats fabricated lies as evidence. Went to the basement behind closed doors, had 17 witnesses ( who knew NOTHING concrete, all hear say) to the Repubs ZERO witnesses. Did not call Bolton at that time and DAMN sure were not gonna call Biden ( because remember Rats never do anything wrong or illegal). Now after they have FAILED to put together NOTHING but a kangaroo impeachment hearing, they want the Senate to do the job they should have done, if they had had any evidence. Now the NYT leaks the Bolton transcript. Who did that? Was it that Warrior hero Vindman's brother, who was in the agency that was vetting the Bolton transcript. You don't think that Obummer HACK would do that do you?? So now, even if Bolton did say that and it is true, (as the HillDawg said "what difference does to make"?) Answer, according to Dershowitch IT IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!!! SO why are we as a country being put through this fiasco. Because the Rats want to keep this charade going well into the election year, because they have fired all their ammo and Trump is still standing and they know there is little hope of them winning in Nov, especially if "The Burn" is the candidate. So they want Bolton to testify. I say BRING IT and while we are at it let's hear from both Bidens (maybe even Joe's brothers, more corrupt crooks) and let's not overlook THE SCHIFF SHOW and Jerry Nadless. Let's get that door to the swamp open and see where things go. 

[coorslite21]

15 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

In wake of Bolton book news, White House allies say Trump lawyers bungled defense

Jon Ward and Michael Isikoff

Yahoo News•January 27, 2020

 

Reports that John Bolton has written a firsthand account of the president’s direct involvement in withholding aid to Ukraine has left some Republicans confused and angry over the legal strategy by the president’s defense team — which has devoted much of its arguments in the Senate impeachment trial to arguing that no such firsthand evidence existed.

One Republican operative who advises the White House said he was “flabbergasted at how stupidly they have handled this.”

Trump attorney Mike Purpura argued Saturday that “not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else.”

Purpura repeated that claim on Monday afternoon, saying that “anyone who spoke to the president” said there was no pressure campaign on Ukraine.

That assertion echoes what the president’s legal team argued in its legal brief filed a week ago: “House Democrats’ claims are built entirely on speculation from witnesses who had no direct knowledge about anything and who never even spoke to the President about this matter.”

The disclosure in the New York Times Sunday night directly contradicts the arguments of the president’s lawyers, who said in their brief that this is “the central fact in this case.” Bolton, Trump’s former security adviser, has written in his forthcoming memoir about having just such a conversation with the president last August.

“This just completely washes away Purpura’s whole argument,” the White House adviser said. “WTF. He misled the Senate.”

Mike Purpura, counsel to the president, at the impeachment trial in the Senate on Saturday. (Screengrab: Senate TV via Yahoo News)

The first of two articles of impeachment in the Senate trial accuses Trump of withholding military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation that could discredit former Vice President Joe Biden.

The House impeachment inquiry heard from numerous witnesses who testified that such a pressure campaign was undertaken by the administration, but none of them had direct evidence that implicated Trump personally.

Bolton claims to have that firsthand knowledge, according to reports about his manuscript.

Bolton’s lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, provided a manuscript of Bolton’s forthcoming book to the White House on Dec. 30, weeks before the Senate impeachment trial began.

The Republican who advises the White House predicted there now may be no way for the White House to prevent Bolton from testifying. The adviser said the cardinal sin by the president's lawyers was not finding out what was in Bolton's book and addressing it in their opening remarks on Saturday.

 

President Trump in the Oval Office in 2018 with then-national security adviser John Bolton looking on. (Photo: Evan Vucci/AP)

It is not known who at the White House had access to the document, but at least one former top executive branch attorney, Jack Goldsmith, said a presidential administration “often circulates manuscripts submitted for [prepublication] review widely, including to political officials, and it often asks for deletions for reasons having nothing to do [with] disclosure of classified info.”

Another Republican operative who speaks regularly with the White House said the upshot of Bolton’s revelations will be to increase momentum toward calls for him to testify.

“I think it pushes at least four GOP senators to vote to call witnesses. They were soft before this little bombshell,” the Republican operative said.

There are 47 Democrats in the Senate. Together with at least four Republicans, they would make up a majority.

On the question of why the president’s lawyers relied so heavily on the absence of a firsthand account tying the president to the pressure on Ukraine, this operative said: “They all represent a serial liar. [You] never know what is really going on. This is how he ran his businesses.”

And indeed, the immediate reaction on Capitol Hill did seem to suggest that the Senate was moving toward the idea of calling at least Bolton to testify. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said it was “increasingly likely” that at least four Republicans would vote to call Bolton to appear before the Senate. 

_____

 

https://news.yahoo.com/in-wake-of-bolton-book-news-white-house-allies-say-trump-lawyers-bungled-defense-202407755.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Ah yes.....the Bolton frenzy....

 

A leak from an unidentified source.....given to the New York Times......supposedly from a rough draft manuscript....issued on the day that presales of the book begins.......

 

And of course according to the MSM..... and others......the sky is falling.....

 

No one knows where Bolton stands.......even what he might say if he testified......but no doubt......presales are going well!

 

For me.......I'll wait a while to see where this goes......for years we were told the Mueller report would be the "end all"....and Schiff had "irrefutable" evidence.....guess neither of those worked out...

 

But oh the Drama........whipped up by the MSM........it's what they do best......    CL 

 

[Shabibilicious]

Any reasonable person would have thought the entire staff over at the White House, including Trump's legal team would have at least scanned Bolton's manuscript they've had on hand since the end of December to redact any info that may show the Boss in a negative light.  It's almost as if Donald's own people want him to get caught.  Weird.

 

GO RV, then BV

[coorslite21]

5 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Any reasonable person would have thought the entire staff over at the White House, including Trump's legal team would have at least scanned Bolton's manuscript they've had on hand since the end of December to redact any info that may show the Boss in a negative light.  It's almost as if Donald's own people want him to get caught.  Weird.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Yet another reason to question the validity of the "frenzy".....at this time it only comes from an unnamed source.....slipped to a publication that is known well to be Anti-Trump...

I'll wait to see where this goes......just as likely as not.....fake news.....    CL

[Shabibilicious]

17 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Yet another reason to question the validity of the "frenzy".....at this time it only comes from an unnamed source.....slipped to a publication that is known well to be Anti-Trump...

I'll wait to see where this goes......just as likely as not.....fake news.....    CL

 

I concur.....just as likely as not....real news....

 

GO RV, then BV

[md11fr8dawg]

I'll go with CL Shabs. Your bubble has been burst too many times from the lying Rats. You get your hopes up that THIS is the devastating evidence, only to find out, oops not true. But like a stopped clock is right twice a day, one day they may actually get something of substance, but they are so mentally deranged they run with ANYTHING, thus NO CREDIBILITY. JMHO!

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, md11fr8dawg said:

I'll go with CL Shabs. Your bubble has been burst too many times from the lying Rats. You get your hopes up that THIS is the devastating evidence, only to find out, oops not true. But like a stopped clock is right twice a day, one day they may actually get something of substance, but they are so mentally deranged they run with ANYTHING, thus NO CREDIBILITY. JMHO!

 

I'm good with that, fr8dawg......got my eyes wide open.  Even GOP groups, some Fox personalities, and Independent voters are turning on Trump.  His economy numbers are phenomenal and yet his approval numbers are far below water. 

 

 

 

GO RV, then BV  

 

 

[coorslite21]

21 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I'm good with that, fr8dawg......got my eyes wide open.  Even GOP groups, some Fox personalities, and Independent voters are turning on Trump.  His economy numbers are phenomenal and yet his approval numbers are far below water. 

 

 

 

GO RV, then BV  

 

 

 

"Turning on Trump".......kind of dramatic don't you think?

 

People looking for more information doesn't equate to jumping ship....JMO.    CL

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

"Turning on Trump".......kind of dramatic don't you think?

 

 

Just making sure people claiming "media drama" feel comfortable that they have a good bead on things.    jk

 

GO RV, then BV

[Karsten]

John Bolton Took 6 Figures from Ukrainian Oligarch Clinton Foundation Donor.

 

Humm, think he has any irons in the fire......Fired Publicly by Trump.

 

https://nationalfile.com/john-bolton-took-six-figures-from-ukrainian-oligarch-clinton-foundation-donor/?fbclid=IwAR30JP8p7KHCWMlk3lAPCsRnEoJu7bYRso8K9wMCt7AaAnnarZ1gfBphABw

 

Karsten

[Shabibilicious]

Hahahaha....and the plot thickens.  At the very least Trump is a terrible judge of character and fantastic at hiring horrible people.  The revolving door of this administration is without even a close equal.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Karsten]

Humm.....The book in question has NOT been printed or published as of yet so it is still a Manuscript.....Any Chance something was recently added to the Manuscript?

 

Just asking.......Look who was reviewing the Manuscript.

 

Vindman’s Twin Brother Was in Charge of Reviewing Bolton Book That Leaked to the Media, Report Says

 

https://pluralist.com/alexander-vindman-twin-brother/?%2F88001

 

Karsten