|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 7:38:02 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-democrats-burisma-bait-and-switch/The Democrats’ Burisma Bait and Switch By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY January 25, 2020 6:30 AM They deny Trump the right to present a defense, then complain that he has produced no evidence. Imagine you get indicted in a swindle. The prosecutors represent that they can prove you and your alleged co-conspirators planned to fleece a major financial institution. You counter that you weren’t fleecing anyone. Sure, you were asking for millions in loans, but the collateral you were prepared to post was real, and so were the businesses in which you were planning to invest the loan proceeds. The capital injection, you thought, would spur the commerce that would enable you to pay off the loan. When you get to court, though, you are horrified to learn that the judge is excluding your defense. The prosecutors peremptorily assert that it’s all a big lie. The judge doesn’t want to hear your constitutional claims about the rights to present a defense and call witnesses; your motion to subpoena evidence is denied. Then, at the trial, not only do the prosecutors establish that you planned to take millions from the bank; they tell the jury there was not a shred of evidence that you had any legitimate collateral or business investment prospects. The whole thing, they insist, was a scam. That is, they stop you from presenting your defense, and then they argue that you should be convicted because you have no defense. It sounds like something out of Kafka. It would never be tolerated in the U.S. judicial system: no competent judge would bar an accused from attempting to prove his defense; and if one did, any conviction would be reversed on appeal. It would not matter whether the prosecutor’s proof was convincing; having one’s day in court means having an opportunity to present any exculpatory evidence. Yet what I’ve just described is essentially what House Democrats have done to President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial on the matter of the Bidens and Burisma. NOW WATCH: 'Democrats Claim to Have More Evidence for Trump's Impeachment Trial' One of the most effective summations in the House impeachment managers’ presentation to the Senate on Thursday was given by Representative Sylvia Garcia, a freshman Democrat from Texas who used to be the presiding judge in Houston’s municipal court system. She took direct aim at claims about suspected Biden self-dealing in Ukraine that have been advanced by President Trump and his defenders, particularly House Republicans and Rudy Giuliani, the president’s private lawyer. The congresswoman was persuasive. Vice President Biden, we’re to believe, had no connection whatsoever to Hunter Biden’s gig at Burisma, the reputedly corrupt Ukrainian energy company on whose board he was lavishly paid to sit. When President Obama’s veep threatened to withhold $1 billion in funding from Ukraine unless the government in Kyiv fired chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin, it had nothing to do with whether Shokin was trying to investigate Burisma. Indeed, it was quite the opposite: Shokin, you see, was utterly without scruples, an obstacle to Western anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. In squeezing Kyiv to remove him, the vice president was simply carrying out Obama-administration policy, which had the backing of our European Union allies and the International Monetary Fund. Should Biden have toned down his characteristic bravado in describing how he extorted the Ukrainians during a speech before a friendly audience? Maybe . . . but the point, Democrats maintain, is that he did nothing wrong. What’s more, they say everyone knows he did nothing wrong — including President Trump. Therefore, the argument goes, when Trump asked President Zelensky for an investigation of the Bidens, it is inconceivable that Trump could actually have been concerned about rooting out corruption. The House impeachment managers scoff at the suggestion that Donald Trump has suddenly become the scourge of corruption in countries, such as Ukraine, that receive hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. There can be no other explanation than that Trump was aiming to damage his likely rival in the 2020 campaign. What’s more, Trump had to have been asking Zelensky, in effect, to lie about Biden — to fabricate a corruption case — because everyone knew the Bidens had done nothing wrong. It’s a well-conceived story. For all we know, there may be truth to it. After all, Trump’s more sensible defenders point out that even if it was imprudent for Trump to invoke Biden’s name and the specter of domestic politics in his conversation with Zelensky, and even if it was inappropriate for Trump to encourage a foreign government to investigate an American citizen for violations of foreign law, there was nothing illegal about it. Analogously, the fact that Hunter Biden was cashing in on his father’s political influence, and that Joe Biden had a neon-flashing conflict of interest when he took official action that could have benefited his son, does not necessarily mean the Bidens did anything illegal. Maybe Vice President Biden’s actions really were a straightforward, disinterested application of Obama-administration policy. This could be unsavory without being unlawful. But here is the thing: It is also entirely possible that the Bidens’ actions, whether or not provably illegal, were so objectively suspicious, so suggestive of corruption, that it was perfectly reasonable for Trump to believe that they should be investigated — and that they could have violated American law, as well as Ukrainian law. The president’s defense has not been given a fair opportunity to prove that. Even though the House impeachment managers are now arguing about Biden corruption allegations in their Senate presentation, the two leaders of the House impeachment inquiry, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, took the position that Republican claims about the Bidens were irrelevant — a partisan red herring to distract from the “real” issues. They steadfastly refused to permit witnesses on that topic (including the Bidens themselves). Moreover, the president was denied the right to have his counsel participate in the main investigative phase, run by Schiff. So, even though Schiff began the House hearings with an absurd parody version of the Trump–Zelensky conversation, falsely suggesting that Trump had asked Zelensky to “make up dirt” about Biden, the House denied the president the opportunity to prove that he was actually asking for help investigating activity that, objectively, appears quite suspicious and potentially corrupt. Even if such an investigation would have helped Trump politically, it is a much different scenario if there was a real basis to believe the Bidens’ conduct should be scrutinized. Joe Biden is not immune from investigation just because he is running for president — certainly no more than the president himself is immune (which, obviously, he’s not). The president has to be given an opportunity to prove his rebuttal case. A trial is not a trial, not in the American tradition, if prosecutors are permitted to level a serious accusation and then deny the accused the right to mount a defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 9:17:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:01:42 GMT -6
Lindsey Graham: When this trial is over, I don’t want to call Hunter Biden now, we will do oversight of the Bidens to give the Vice President (Biden) the scrutiny that the president has had regarding the Ukraine is yet to be had.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:04:09 GMT -6
President Donald Trump sat down with Maria Bartiromo this week during his travel to Davos, Switzerland.
Bartiromo ran the interview on Sunday Morning Futures this weekend.
During their conversation President Trump accused Obama of illegal spying on his campaign.
Maria Bartiromo: Attorney General Barr is looking at officials not in the Horowitz report. He’s looking at Brenann. He’s looking at other Obama officials. How far up the line do you think that it went?
President Donald Trump: I think it went right to the top. And I think what they did was they spied on my election. What they did was so illegal like in history there’s never been anything like it. They tried to defeat me before I got elected. And then the insurance policy kicked in. Remember the famous insurance policy? If he wins we’ll go get him here. And that happened. There has never been a thing like this. If this were reversed and this were Obama, President Obama that this happened to. People would be in jail right now for 50 year terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:23:40 GMT -6
President Trump tweeted this :
And now, Adam Schiff says he feels "threatened" :
Lead House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said he feels threatened by President Trump over a tweet posted Sunday saying of Schiff that he “has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country.” Schiff made the comment on NBC’s Meet the Press where he was interviewed by host Chuck Todd. Schiff accused Trump of being “wrathful and vindictive” in explaining why he feels threatened by Trump over a tweet.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:25:30 GMT -6
And, race is brought into it lol: dailycaller.com/2020/01/25/toobin-cnn-trump-lawyers-white-men/CNN Legal Analyst Aghast That Trump’s Lawyers ‘All White Men’ CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted Saturday that President Donald Trump’s legal team lacks diversity because “it was all white men today.” Toobin was commenting on the lawyers who provided Trump’s legal defense at his Senate impeachment trial. After three days of House Democrats, led by impeachment manager California Rep. Adam Schiff, the president’s lawyers provided two hours of rebuttal. “White House, white people,” Toobin said. “You know, this is a lesson in the diversity of the two parties. You look at the house managers, it was almost evenly divided between men and women, you had two African Americans, you had a Hispanic; I mean, it was all white men today.” (RELATED: White House Lawyer: Schiff ‘Untruthful On Whistleblower And Russian Collusion) He suggested there might be two white women “allegedly on the team. We’ll see if they’re allowed to argue, but I think in a visual medium when you have one side that has a very diverse team and the other side that’s white men, that says something in and of itself.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) arrives for hearing on Capitol Hill in December 2019. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images) Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) arrives for hearing on Capitol Hill in December 2019. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images) The impeachment trial, like the inquiry, has focused on whether Trump made foreign aid to Ukraine conditional on an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. The president has said he was referring to an investigation into corruption in Ukraine. (RELATED: Adam Schiff: Removing Trump Urgent Because He’s ‘Threatening’ To ‘Cheat In The Next Election’) On Friday, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters that even if the president had asked for an investigation into the Bidens, he would not have been wrong to do so. He promised that he was planning to investigate Hunter Biden at some future date. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:31:39 GMT -6
That's not how it works Schiff. www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/26/adam-schiff-without-witnesses-there-is-no-exoneration/Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) declared on Sunday’s broadcast of NBC’s “Meet the Press” that if Republican senators do not vote for witnesses, President Donald Trump would not be exonerated. When asked about the president’s defense team, Schiff said, “I think they’re definitely afraid of what witnesses have to say and so their whole strategy has been to deprive the public of a fair trial. They don’t frame it that way, but that’s, in essence, they have a very heavy burden with that because the American people understand what a fair trial is. A fair trial requires witnesses. A fair trial does not consist of the person who is charged agreeing with the judges to deprive the prosecution from being able to make a case.” He continued, “So it’s hard to argue we don’t want to hear the evidence, particularly when they say we should hear from more direct witnesses to talk to the president but we’re not going to allow them to be called. What was so striking to me really about their case is they basically acknowledged the scheme. They don’t contest the scheme. They don’t say, no, he didn’t try to get foreign help in the election. They didn’t say there was no evidence he was conditioning the aid. They just tried to make the case that you don’t need a fair trial here. You can make this go away.” He added, “If they’re successful in depriving the country with a fair trial, there is no exoneration. There is no exoneration. Americans will recognize that the country did not get what the founders intended because they put the word try in the Constitution for a reason.” |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:34:30 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/26/joe-biden-ducks-questions-about-conflict-of-interest-in-ukraine/Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed in an interview set to air Sunday morning that no one had been able to point to anything he had done wrong in Ukraine. Biden told Manchester, New Hampshire’s WMUR-9: My case has already been made. There’s not a single solitary person in this administration who said I did anything other than my job. Not anybody in the United States of America that has been involved at all. Not anybody abroad … I did my job, and I did it really well. The problem is here, this is all about Trump’s ability to take the focus off. Biden’s claim contradicts the testimony of several of the witnesses Democrats themselves called in the House impeachment inquiry.
George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the State Department, told the House Intelligence Committee that Biden had an apparent conflict of interest because his son, Hunter Biden, had been appointed to a well-compensated position on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, that was widely perceived to be corrupt. Kent said that he brought the issue up in 2015: “I raised my concerns [with the vice president’s staff] that I had heard that Hunter Biden was on the board of a company owned by somebody that the U.S. Government had spent money trying to get tens of milljons of dollars back and that could create the perception of a conflict of interest.” He added that the vice president’s office had said that Biden was too busy dealing with the tragic death of his other son, Beau. But nothing was done afterwards, either. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch told the committee that she had been specifically briefed by the Obama administration before her confirmation hearing not to answer questions about Biden’s conflict of interest, but to direct all questions to the vice president’s office, instead. Reporters had first raised the question of Biden’s apparent conflict of interest in 2014, after Hunter Biden’s appointment, but nothing was apparently done about it. Biden himself admitted last week that the arrangement “looked bad.” The full interview airs Sunday morning at 10:00 a.m. on WMUR-9. www.wmur.com/article/biden-discusses-impeachment-in-interview-on-wmurs-closeup/30661842
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:35:22 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/26/dershowitz-house-managers-case-falls-short-of-impeachment-standard-even-if-true/Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said on this week’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday” that he felt the House managers’ case fell short of the standard needed to convict President Donald Trump in the Senate impeachment trial. Dershowitz said, “Even if the factual allegations are true – which are highly disputed and which the defense team will show contrary evidence — but even if true, they did not allege impeachable offenses. So there can’t be a constitutionally authorized impeachment.” He added, “The conduct has to be criminal in nature. It can’t be abuse of power. It can’t be obstruction of Congress. Those are precisely the arguments that the framers rejected.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 11:36:47 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/26/white-house-lawyers-attack-democrat-mind-reading-in-senate-impeachment-trial/The White House legal team relied on a repeated theme in its attack on House impeachment managers’ case against President Donald Trump in the Senate on Saturday: they accused Democrats of “mind-reading.” White House Counsel Michael Purpura first used the phrase after quoting several Ukrainian officials, from President Volodymyr Zelensky on down, denying that they had felt any pressure from President Trump, or that they believed a temporary hold on U.S. aid was connected to a demand for investigations. “The fact that President Zelensky himself felt no pressure on the call and did not perceive there to be any connection between security assistance and investigations would, in any ordinary case, in any court, be totally fatal to the prosecution. The judge would throw it out, the case would be over; what more do you need to know?” he said. In response, he said, House Democrats had to pretend that Zelensky and the Ukrainians were not telling the truth: “They tell you that the Ukrainians must have felt pressure, regardless of what they’ve said. They try to overcome the devastating evidence against them by, apparently, claiming to be mind-readers. They know what’s in President Zelensky’s mind, better President Zelensky he does.” Later, White House attorney Jay Sekulow made the same point, after noting that President Trump and President Zelensky had, in fact, held a meeting, without any preconditions, at the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2019. He quoted that one of the Democrats’s star witnesses, Dr. Fiona Hill, testified that the meeting Zelensky wanted was not necessarily at the White House itself, but simply a “White House-level” meeting with the president. He mocked the idea that an article of impeachment could be based on the idea that a meeting took place in one place rather than another. He then declared: “This case is really not about presidential wrongdoing. This entire impeachment process is about the House managers’ insistence that they are able to read everybody’s thoughts. They can read everybody’s intention, even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong.” Sekulow returned to the theme later, wrapping up his presentation by quoting President Zelensky’s answer when asked about a “quid pro quo.” “He says: ‘We had a good phone call’ — these are his words — ‘it was normal. We spoke about many things. I think — and you read it — that nobody pushed me’.” Sekulow concluded: “They think you can read minds. I think you look at the words.” Finally, White House Counsel Patrick Philbin noted that lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, had misled the public about his committee’s past contact with the so-called “whistleblower.” Philbin added: This is relevant here, I think, because as you’ve heard from my colleagues, a lot of what we’ve heard over the past 23 hours, over the past three days, has been from Chairman Schiff. And he has been telling you things like what’s in President Trump’s head, what’s in President Zelensky’s head. It’s all his interpretation of the facts and the evidence, trying to pull inferences out of things. He then played a clip of Schiff appearing on Meet the Press in March 2017, telling NBC’s Chuck Todd that there was “more than circumstantial” evidence of “Russia collusion.” Philbin explained: They want to tell you what President Trump thought, they want to tell you, “Don’t believe what Zelensky said, we can tell you what Zelensky actually thought. Don’t believe what they other Ukrainians actually said about not being pressured, we can tell you what they actually thought.” That it is very relevant to know whether the assessments of evidence he’s presented in the past are accurate. And we would submit that they have not been Criticism of “mind-reading” arguments appears frequently in the work of Dilbert cartoonist and political prognosticator Scott Adams, who is known to have a following in the White House, and who dissects “mind-reading” arguments in his new book, Loserthink: How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 14:25:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 15:43:30 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/01/26/adam-schiff-republicans-head-on-a-pike-moral-courage/House impeachment manager Adam Schiff appeared to suggest Sunday that any Republicans who were angry at his presentation before the Senate must lack moral courage. “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd confronted Schiff with the comments from several prominent Republicans — some from swing states — who had criticized him for citing a CBS report they all claimed was untrue. That story alleged that President Donald Trump had warned Republicans in the Senate that if they chose not to vote with him, their heads “will be on a pike.” (RELATED: ‘They’ve Taken Their Best Kill Shot And Missed’: Geraldo Rivera Says Impeachment Is Doomed) GOP senators are heard yelling “that’s not true” when House manager Adam Schiff cites a CBS report claiming Pres. Trump told them their heads “will be on a pike” if they voted against him. pic.twitter.com/wrXI4KhGPR — Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) January 25, 2020 Todd asked Schiff about the Republican senators — namely Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Joni Ernst of Iowa — who had called him out for introducing that report on the Senate floor. WATCH: What do you make of the criticism that some Republican senators didn’t like your ‘head on a pike’ comment?” Todd asked. “Murkowski, Collins and Ernst, all three who might be open to witnesses thought you might have gotten too personal.” Primis Player Placeholder Schiff first appeared to shift the responsibility to CBS, saying, “I don’t think it was personal to refer to the CBS story.” He then immediately pivoted to the Republicans who had criticized him, appearing to suggest that their lack of “moral courage” in standing up to President Trump was the real problem. “What may be personal, and I think I have to be very candid about this, is I made the argument that it’s going to require moral courage to stand up to this president.” “Look, it is going to be very difficult for some of these senators to stand up to this president. It really is,” Schiff continued. “There’s just no question about it. And I want to acknowledge that. And I don’t want to acknowledge it in a way that is offensive to them. But I do want to speak candidly about it. And if this weren’t an issue, there wouldn’t be an issue about calling witnesses. If we can’t even get the senators to agree to call witnesses in a trial, it shows you just how difficult that moral courage is.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 26, 2020 15:49:52 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-impeachment-manager-admits-that-impeachment-is-about-2020-electionDemocrat Impeachment Manager Admits That Impeachment Is About 2020 Election Democrat impeachment manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) appeared to admit on Sunday that Democrats’ partisan articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump were about the upcoming 2020 presidential election. “Congresswoman, you told senators this week ‘Don’t surrender to the president’s stonewalling,'” CNN’s Jake Tapper said to Lofgren. “But what do you say to those who say, that’s what exactly what the House Democrats did by not going to court to try to force subpoenas and force witnesses?” “We did go to court, as you know,” Lofgren responded. “But you didn’t pursue it in court,” Tapper responded. “You ultimately withdrew the cases and went to the Senate.” “We realized we had the evidence we were going to get and that it was sufficient to prove our case,” Lofgren responded. “But didn’t you surrender to the president’s stonewalling, in that sense?” Tapper asked. “Well, in that — I guess, in that sense, we did, because, if we had waited for three or four years, the election would be over,” Lofgren said. “The issue would be almost moot.” WATCH: Lofgren is far from the first Democrat to admit that impeachment is about stopping Trump from being re-elected in November. Last week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is also one of the Democrats’ impeachment managers, essentially said the same thing when he said that Trump’s alleged misconduct could not be decided at the ballot box. “The House did not take this extraordinary step lightly,” Schiff said. “As we will discuss, impeachment exists for cases in which the conduct of the president rises beyond mere policies, disputes to be decided otherwise, and without urgency at the ballot box.” “Instead, we are here today to consider a much more grave matter and that is an attempt to use the powers of the presidency to cheat in an election,” Schiff continued. “For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.” In May, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) said, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” Also in May, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi )D-CA) said, “We have to make sure — this will sound political but we have to make sure that the Constitution wins the next presidential election. We can’t be worrying about well, how long is this going to take? Well, that will take as long as it does. And we will press the case so that in the court of public opinion. People will know what is — is right. But we cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump if we are going to be faithful to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States.” In November, socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “At the end of the day, we have to be able to come together as a caucus and if it is this Ukrainian allegation that is what brings the caucus together, um, then I think we have to run with however we unify the House. We also need to move quite quickly because we’re talking about the potential compromise of the 2020 elections. And so this is not just about something that has occurred; this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 5:06:00 GMT -6
Right on cue: Several anonymous sources have reportedly told The New York Times that a book manuscript by Ambassador John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor to President Trump, accuses Trump of tying the hold up of aid to Ukraine last year with his desire for investigations into the Bidens and interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election, something Trump has vehemently denied but has been impeached by the House and is on trial for in the Senate. The Times reported on descriptions of the manuscript Sunday evening, as the President’s defense team prepares for day on two Monday of their rebuttal to the Democrat House Managers’ case against Trump. Bolton was blocked by Trump from testifying in the House impeachment inquiry on national security grounds of executive privilege, however Bolton has said he would testify in the Senate trial if he was issued a subpoena. Motions to allow witness testimony in the trail have been tabled until after the first stages of the trial are complete: Prosecution, defense and then questions from senators. The report by the Times is timed to influence the votes of Republicans to allow witnesses as the Democrats are all on record as being in favor. The Times does not claim to have seen the manuscript, but is basing its report on anonymous sources who claim to have given The Times descriptions. There are no quotes from the manuscript. Excerpt: President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton. The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office. Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books. Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages. …Key to Mr. Bolton’s account about Ukraine is an exchange during a meeting in August with the president after Mr. Trump returned from vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J. Mr. Bolton raised the $391 million in congressionally appropriated assistance to Ukraine for its war in the country’s east against Russian-backed separatists. Officials had frozen the aid, and a deadline was looming to begin sending it to Kyiv, Mr. Bolton noted. He, Mr. Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper had collectively pressed the president about releasing the aid nearly a dozen times in the preceding weeks after lower-level officials who worked on Ukraine issues began complaining about the holdup, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Trump had effectively rebuffed them, airing his longstanding grievances about Ukraine, which mixed legitimate efforts by some Ukrainians to back his Democratic 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, with unsupported accusations and outright conspiracy theories about the country, a key American ally. …In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine… www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-inquiries-he-sought-bolton-book-says/ar-BBZlMfyAnd here come the Democrats: |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 5:08:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 5:12:07 GMT -6
amp.dailycaller.com/2020/01/26/adam-schiff-trump-threat-nancy-pelosi-senate-republicansAdam Schiff Accused Trump Of Trying To Threaten Him — But Nancy Pelosi Used The Same Phrase On Senate Republicans House impeachment manager Adam Schiff accused President Donald Trump of trying to threaten him Sunday in a tweet suggesting Schiff would “pay a price” — but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used the same phrase on Senate Republicans just two weeks ago. Trump tweeted Sunday morning that Schiff had not “paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 5:15:09 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/doug-collins-house-democrats-attacks-on-senators-show-they-have-nothing-on-trumpRep. Doug Collins (R-GA) told Fox News on Sunday that Democratic House impeachment managers insulted members of the U.S. Senate last week because they do not have the evidence they need to convict President Donald Trump of their articles of impeachment. “If you’re a lawyer and you’re going to present the case to the ‘jury,’ the first thing you don’t do is go insult them and actually make a case in which they are turned off by what you’re saying,” Collins said. “But it is not a shock, because here’s what happened with the House managers. The reason they did it, number one, is the president is not guilty. He did nothing wrong. The facts and the truth are on the president’s side, and the House managers know that.” “Number two, we knew it was a political impeachment, because when they actually looked at it from the perspective of what do they want to do, they didn’t want to go to court, they didn’t want to take the witnesses, they didn’t want to do the due diligence that they should have done in the House. So it was a political impeachment,” Collins continued. “So, what are you left with? Well, I guess we’re left with it. Let’s see if we can shame the Senate into doing our job for us.” “But I think it backfired on them, especially when Chairman Nadler said that, if you don’t agree with me, then you’re – then you’re basically – you’re corrupt, that you’re hiding something,” Collins continued. “That just should show the American people in a clear form that the House managers have nothing on this president, except smear, innuendo, and an election in 2020 in mind.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 7:53:22 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/critics-hammer-bolton-after-book-pre-order-goes-live-following-leaked-manuscript-published-by-nytCritics Hammer Bolton After Book Pre-Order Goes Live Following Leaked Manuscript Published By NYT Former national security adviser John Bolton came under fire on Sunday over a report that was published in The New York Times that claimed that Bolton said in his upcoming book that President Donald Trump directly tied financial assistance to Ukraine with Ukraine announcing an investigation into Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden. “President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton,” The New York Times reported. “In recent days, some White House officials have described Mr. Bolton as a disgruntled former employee, and have said he took notes that he should have left behind when he departed the administration.” The Times added that one of the reasons that Bolton now wants to testify is that he is afraid that “he will be accused of holding back to increase his book sales.” Immediately following the publication of the Times’ report, Democrats and the media began to call on Republicans in the Senate to allow new witnesses to be brought into Trump’s impeachment trial. Shortly after the Times’ report was published, CNN media reporter Brian Stelter reported that a page for Bolton’s book just went live on Amazon for people to pre-order. Fox News political analyst Brit Hume wrote: “This came along right about on schedule.” Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway wrote: “This is obviously book promo coordinated with compliant media, yes. But an additional word of skepticism: these *particular* folks have a pattern of overpromising and underachieving with their ‘bombshell’ anti-Trump book roll outs.” This is obviously book promo coordinated with compliant media, yes. But an additional word of skepticism: these *particular* folks have a pattern of overpromising and underachieving with their "bombshell" anti-Trump book roll outs. t.co/xid14bUvmG— Mollie (@mzhemingway) January 27, 2020 Political commentator Stephen Miller wrote that “launching a book on Amazon with the assistance of the NYT as you’re being pressured to testify is going to be hilariously exploited by the WH team.” I don’t know but launching a book on Amazon with the assistance of the NYT as you’re being pressured to testify is going to be hilariously exploited by the WH team. t.co/ABf89TfIPk— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 27, 2020 Federalist co-founder Sean Davis wrote: “Just like James Comey, John Bolton is trying to get rich off of a lie- and leak-fueled campaign to overturn the 2016 election results. I suspect it will work out as well as all of Bolton’s other wars.” Just like James Comey, John Bolton is trying to get rich off of a lie- and leak-fueled campaign to overturn the 2016 election results. I suspect it will work out as well as all of Bolton’s other wars. t.co/z0fe2aMMFn— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 27, 2020 Davis added, “John Bolton is running the exact same revenge playbook against Trump that James Comey used. He’s even using the same agent and leaking to the same reporters. All because he’s mad Trump fired him for leaking and trying to start new wars. It’s so boring and predictable.” John Bolton is running the exact same revenge playbook against Trump that James Comey used. He’s even using the same agent and leaking to the same reporters. All because he’s mad Trump fired him for leaking and trying to start new wars. It’s so boring and predictable. — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 27, 2020 Liberal political commentator Dave Rubin responded by writing, “I’m a simple man so maybe I’m not understanding. It seems Bolton is agreeing that Trump wanted to investigate corruption in Ukraine otherwise we’d withhold aid. So are we supposed to give aid to corrupt countries now? Is that now a good thing?” I’m a simple man so maybe I’m not understanding. It seems Bolton is agreeing that Trump wanted to investigate corruption in Ukraine otherwise we’d withhold aid. So are we supposed to give aid to corrupt countries now? Is that now a good thing? — Dave Rubin (@rubinreport) January 27, 2020 Political commentator Buck Sexton wrote: “Given the obvious timing of this, wondering if they will let Michael Avenatti out of prison to help Julie Swetnick claim she was on the phone call with Trump too, so the media can breathlessly print her insane and fact free allegations in a last desperate act to rig the trial.” Given the obvious timing of this, wondering if they will let Michael Avenatti out of prison to help Julie Swetnick claim she was on the phone call with Trump too, so the media can breathlessly print her insane and fact free allegations in a last desperate act to rig the trial t.co/RYLgPKwbNs— Buck Sexton (@bucksexton) January 27, 2020 National security reporter Jordan Schachtel wrote: “Team John Bolton is attempting to convince you, the potential buyer of his memoir, that he had nothing to do w/ leaks to the press. & oh by the way it was just a shocking coincidence his book’s Amazon pg went live simultaneously. TBH it doesn’t seem like he respects you at all.” Team John Bolton is attempting to convince you, the potential buyer of his memoir, that he had nothing to do w/ leaks to the press. & oh by the way it was just a shocking coincidence his book's Amazon pg went live simultaneously. TBH it doesn't seem like he respects you at all. — Jordan Schachtel (@jordanschachtel) January 27, 2020
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 8:09:03 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/01/27/trump-is-right-adam-schiff-has-not-paid-for-damaging-the-country-with-years-of-lies/Trump Is Right. Adam Schiff Has Not Paid For Damaging The Country With Years Of Lies Schiff was not telling the truth when he kept dripping out lies to compliant reporters. Because he helped them accomplish their political goals against their nemesis Trump, however, they have not held him accountable. Mollie HemingwayBy Mollie Hemingway JANUARY 27, 2020 When President Trump tweeted on Sunday that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was a “CORRUPT POLITICIAN” who “has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!” the media and Democrats loudly protested, as they do, that this was a threat. “Schiff ‘has not paid the price’ for impeachment, Trump says in what appears to be veiled threat,” said a Washington Post headline. “Schiff, Calling Trump ‘Wrathful and Vindictive,’ Sees Tweet as a Threat” The New York Times headlined. “Trump makes ‘threat’ against Rep. Adam Schiff,” was the New York Daily News headline. “Adam Schiff: Trump Saying I Should Pay a Price Is ‘Intended to Be’ a Threat,” headlined The Daily Beast. “Trump tweet was ‘threat’ against Adam Schiff, Democrats say,” went the story in USA Today. What a ludicrous spin that Democrats and the media pushed in lockstep. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Republicans would “pay a price” for not acquiescing to her demands regarding a Senate impeachment trial, none of these reporters or outlets claimed she was threatening them. What price, political or otherwise, has Schiff paid for falsely claiming for years that he had evidence that Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Schiff had hundreds of television, radio, and public appearances during the Russia collusion hoax, during which time he used his status as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to lie to Americans about whether the Russia collusion story was true. Day after day, week after week, month after month, he fed information to a compliant media about how this collusion was real. When Robert Mueller ended his expansive, multi-year investigation into the question, he didn’t find a single American who had colluded with Russia, not to mention a single Trump campaign affiliate, not to mention Trump. Schiff never apologized for his lies. Here’s an example of one of his false statements, lapped up by Chuck Todd. The insane conspiracy theory that Trump won the 2016 election, not by appealing to voters, or running against a deeply troubled favorite of the elites, or by visiting Michigan and Wisconsin, but because he was part of a decades-long plot to work with Russia to steal the election deeply damaged the country. It harmed relations with other countries, it terrified qualified individuals away from serving in agencies, it polarized the country, it fed the delusions of emotionally troubled people. And it was not true. Schiff was not telling the truth when he kept dripping out this theory to compliant reporters. Because he helped them accomplish their political goals against their nemesis Trump, however, they have not held him accountable. What price did Adam Schiff pay for falsely telling the country that the process used to secure warrants to spy on Americans was beyond reproach? When committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes tried to find out answers about how the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, Schiff fought him every step of the way. When, against all odds, Nunes was able to put out a now completely vindicated report on abuses in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) processes used by the Department of Justice, Schiff, who had access to the same information, ran to the cameras to denounce Nunes and defend the process. The media ran story after story aping Schiff’s messaging against Nunes and praising and accepting whole Schiff’s response memo. Now that the inspector general put out a report detailing 17 major flaws with how the DOJ went about securing warrants to spy on a Trump campaign affiliate, Schiff has not been held accountable for his lies. What price did Schiff pay for lying to the media about whether he and his staff had worked with the whistleblower that was deployed to launch impeachment proceedings? When asked if they’d had any contact with him, he said they had not. That turned out to be a lie. His staff had coordinated and even provided guidance to the whistleblower before he lodged his complaint. Members of his staff appear to have been quite close to him, in fact. He admitted he lied, but how has Schiff been held accountable for this? What price did Schiff pay for misrepresenting evidence regarding Lev Parnas, someone he claims he must have testify before the Senate even though he also claims his case against Trump is airtight? Politico reported that he was misrepresenting evidence to make something seem more dramatic than it was. It was a barely noticed story. How has Schiff been held accountable for this? Instead, the leftist hordes at CNN and MSNBC praised him sycophantically. And even the folks who like to present themselves as reporters also praise him. Chances are incredibly high that Schiff personally lied to this national security reporter, who wrote a non-critical book on the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. Yet even he will not hold Schiff accountable. So no, media, noticing that Schiff has been rewarded for his lies instead of held accountable for them is not a threat. And to say it’s a threat only shows how the media are working far more as partisan activists than purveyors of news.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 10:38:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 11:23:58 GMT -6
A tell-all book by a guy President Trump fired from his post doesn’t come out until March 17, but the New York Times posted a lengthy story about it just as the president’s lawyers have opened their defense in the Senate’s impeachment trial.
That doesn’t add up, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said Monday.
“Our team just went on Saturday and in two hours undid all of the hours and hours, in 24 hours, that the Dems did in the Senate trial,” Grisham told Fox News’ “Fox and Friends.” “It’s very clear the president did nothing wrong. Suddenly, this manuscript has magically appeared in the hands of The New York Times.”
She said that timing is “very, very suspect.”
The Times reported on Sunday that former national security adviser John Bolton will say in his new book that Trump’s hold on $391 million in U.S. aid to Ukraine was directly linked to the country’s leaders agreeing to conduct an investigation into Joe Biden and other Democrats. Grisham noted that Amazon posted a link for the book, titled “The Room Where it Happened,” and is taking presales orders. The book, by the way, is being published by Simon and Schuster, “the same publisher that [disgraced former FBI Director James] Comey used,” Grisham said.
Grisham said Bolton sent the manuscript of the book to the White House on Dec. 30, adding it is “something we have kept walled off for obvious reasons” as it “could be a conflict with the trial going on.”
She also said there is “nothing that I have seen and nothing that I know about in terms of what they would remove for national security.”
“I don’t know if they have done anything, if they have made any edits yet for the national security and if there is any classified information out there,’ said Grisham. “But, if there is, it’s a very, very dangerous precedent to set once again.”
Grisham also shot down claims made by Rep. Adam Schiff that Trump had threatened him on Twitter when he said the California Democrat has “not paid the price yet” for his actions on impeaching Trump.
“I think Schiff has shockingly thin skin if he thinks that was any kind of a threat from the president of the United States,” said Grisham. “I believe it means there will be consequences with the American people and at the ballot box… I think he was grandstanding once again and playing the pity card that he just got threatened by the president. I think people see through that.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 11:26:43 GMT -6
Right on cue, Romney joins in :
You have the transcript of the phone call, plus several different interviews where Ukrainian officials said this did not happen. But hey, let's not let facts & the truth get in the way of a trial with no crime committed now shall we?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 11:30:57 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/political/looks-tactic-sell-books-gop-senators-pan-11th-hour-bolton-leak-while-romney-and-collins'This Looks Like A Tactic To Sell Books': GOP Senators Pan 11th Hour Bolton Leak While Romney And Collins Play Ball Profile picture for user Tyler Durden by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/27/2020 - 11:55 0 SHARES TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine supported comments made by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) over whether former National Security Adviser John Bolton should testify in President Trump's impeachment trial, after a manuscript of his upcoming book was leaked to the New York Times which claims that President Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of the Bidens. "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues," said Collins. JUST IN: GOP Sen. Susan Collins: "The reports about John Bolton's book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues." t.co/wDglFX1ipA pic.twitter.com/DlSjXMfDsk — ABC News Politics (@abcpolitics) January 27, 2020 Collins echoed Monday comments by Romney, who said "it is increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton," adding that it is "increasingly likely" that other GOP senators would join the 11th hour call. "It's pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide to those of us who are sitting in impartial justice," he said. WATCH: GOP Senator Mitt Romney says "it is increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton," adding it is "increasingly likely" other GOP senators would join in too. pic.twitter.com/gyeiKkyPuE — Meet the Press (@meetthepress) January 27, 2020 Other GOP Senators disagree - including Majority Whip John Thune, who said "I don't think it changes the facts ... I don't personally see it as a game changer." Sen Fischer asked if the Bolton revelations change anything for the trial: “Do you guys have memos on the same question to ask all the time? Just curious.” — Erica Werner (@ericawerner) January 27, 2020 Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said "This looks like a marketing tactic to sell books is what it looks like to me." Sen. Blunt on John Bolton: “I can’t imagine that anything he would have to say would change the outcome of the final vote. Might be interesting, might be an oversight question that Congress wants to take months to pursue.“ “I think Bolton is credible, he's a friend of mine.” — Alan He (@alanhe) January 27, 2020 NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories. Your email... President Trump, meanwhile, tweeted on Monday "I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems. Additionally, I met with President Zelensky at the United Nations (Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations - and far ahead of schedule. I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration." ...transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems. Additionally, I met with President Zelensky at the United Nations... — Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) January 27, 2020 Of course, if Bolton doesn't testify, they'll call it a cover up.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 11:32:28 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/27/private-trump-tape-bolsters-wh-impeachment-defense-but-deceptive-media-edits-focus-on-unrelated-ambassador/NEW YORK — In hyping audio that appears to show President Donald Trump calling for the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine to be fired, the news media are entirely ignoring a key section of the same recording strongly supporting a central argument by the president’s defense team. The news media seem to go to significant length to hide the sections of the audio in question given that Trump’s statements strengthening his defense arguments are made mere seconds before the audio being feverishly spotlighted by the news media where the president said he wanted then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to be removed from her position without even knowing her name. The audio, which centered on Ukraine, shows nearly a year and a half before Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president, he expressed deep concern that Germany was not paying its fair share in supporting Ukraine. It’s always us that has to support everybody. “Why is in Germany supporting?” Trump asked in the scrubbed audio. “Germany is not doing much,” he complained. Trump’s legal team has been slamming Democrats and the news media for ignoring that during his July 25 call with Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky, Trump complained to the newly elected leader that Germany and other European countries were doing “almost nothing” for Ukraine. Zelensky agreed with that position. Those sections of the call with Zelensky poke major holes in the Democrat’s narrative that Trump withheld aid from Ukraine as some sort of quid pro quo when he requested that Ukraine should investigate corruption in the country. When asked last September why he withheld aid to Ukraine, Trump tied the issue to his longstanding complaint that other countries were not paying their fair share. Trump stated: As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid. They were fully paid. But my complaint has always been — and I’d withhold again, and I’ll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine. Because they’re not doing it. Just the United States. We’re putting up the bulk of the money. And I’m asking why is that. Indeed, in his call with Zelensky, Trump spotlighted his displeasure that the U.S. was helping Ukraine while Germany and other European nations were not doing enough. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. During the Senate impeachment hearing the last few days, a key argument by Trump’s defense team has been keen to document the Democrats abject refusal to acknowledge the section of the call with Zelensky where Trump complained about a lack of funding to Ukraine from Germany and other European nations. “They didn’t tell you that burden sharing was discussed in the call,” White House Attorney Pat Cipollone said during Saturday’s hearing. Trump’s legal team even made slideshows for the Senate trial highlighting the portion of the call to Zelensky where the president made the case about other nations not contributing enough. Now the news media seem to go be going to great lengths to hide key sections of an audio recording they have been hyping since the full recording of an April 2018 dinner was published by CBS News on Saturday. The comments in question, where Trump complains about Germany not paying its fair share to Ukraine, are made mere seconds before the section of the audio being played up by the news media. Saturday saw the release to the news media of the full one hour and 23-minute audio that apparently captured the dinner with Trump attended by indicted Rudy Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. ABC first reported on some of the conversation on Friday with the full audio being released the next day. The section of the audio that has been making waves has Trump calling for the ouster of Yovanovitch, although she wasn’t removed until 13 months later in May 2019. NBC reported on the audio: In the recording, a voice that appears to be Parnas’ tells Trump during a conversation on Ukraine that “where we need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador, she’s still left over from the Clinton administration.” He says the ambassador has been” basically walking around telling everybody ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached, just wait.'” Trump asks for the ambassador’s name, but both Parnas and another person at the table say they don’t have her name at the front of their memory. Trump says to “get rid of her.” “Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK?” Trump appears to say. NBC and other media outlets, however failed to report that mere seconds earlier Trump complained about Germany not paying its fair share to Ukraine – evidencing a longtime theme that Trump was upset about America taking on more of the burden in providing aid to Ukraine. The audio clearly lends more credibility to Trump’s argument that his motivation for withholding aid to Ukraine related in part to the issue of other countries paying more. Seconds before Trump’s comments on Yovanovitch, he states the following in the context of Ukraine (41:30 mark): It’s always us that has to support everybody. Why isn’t Germany supporting? Germany is not doing much. And less than three minutes earlier, Trump stated: How about Germany opening up a pipeline into Russia? And we are supposed to be fighting Russia. So Germany is paying Russia like 2 billion dollars a month and they a member of NATO… And we are paying 90% of the cost of NATO. Even CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin seemed to agree with White House attorney Cipollone’s contention the Democrats have omitted from their presentations the section of Trump’s call with Zelensky dealing with a lack of funding from Germany and other European nations. “They did make one good point about [the transcript], I thought, which was the president did about burden-sharing in that phone call, and the House managers didn’t focus on that or even mention it. And fair is fair,” Toobin stated. “He has talked about it before, and that was, I thought, a very legitimate good point made by the defense,” he added.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 11:33:40 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/27/ernst-house-could-have-brought-in-bolton-and-didnt-investigative-work-is-not-the-job-of-the-senate/On Monday’s “Hugh Hewitt Show,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) stated that while she won’t make a final judgment on which witnesses, if any, she wants to call in the Senate’s impeachment trial, doing “investigative work” is not the Senate’s job, and the House had the opportunity to bring in former National Security Adviser John Bolton as a witness and didn’t. Ernst began by saying, “I have said time and time again, regardless of who the witness is, what the situation was, we need to get through phase one first.” She added that the House “had every opportunity to subpoena these witnesses. They could have taken the time to go through the court system. They chose not to do that. They were in such an all-fired hurry to get this impeachment process done by Christmas and move it over to the Senate, you know, whenever they chose the appropriate time, I guess. But you know, they want us to do the investigative work. And that’s not the job of the Senate. It is the job of the House to put together a solid record to send to the Senate for a review. They obviously did not do that, but we’ll, again, determine, after we’ve gone through the next several days what that next step will be, will we bring in witnesses or not.” Ernst further stated, “I think the opportunity that they had, and I would go back to that, because John Bolton would have been someone working very closely with the president. Why did they choose not to bring him in, have him interviewed? Why did they make that choice in the House? Whether the book is out there or not, they could have asked these same questions. So, that would be my argument, is that they had the opportunity to bring him in, they chose not to do it. Now, why did they choose not to do it? They will have to explain that. But again, I will reserve my judgment until after I’ve heard from, of course, the White House Counsel.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 13:05:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 13:05:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 13:07:01 GMT -6
On Monday morning Democrat Adam Schiff accused President Trump of wanting to cheat in the 2020 election.
Rep. Adam Schiff: You certainly can’t have a meaningful trial without witnesses and certainly can’t have one without John Bolton. I’m pleased that the senators are reconsidering, some that had I think questions about the utility witness testimony they appear to be reconsidering and I think that’s very positive. Because this witness has such relevant information to shed on the most egregious of all of the charges in the articles of impeachment. And that is that the President of the United States withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid from an ally at war to help secure that nation’s help to cheat in the next election.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 13:08:28 GMT -6
Bob Driscoll, the attorney for Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney released a statement moments ago.
Mick Mulvaney DENIES the accusations alleged by John Bolton in his upcoming book.
Bob Driscoll: “The latest story from the New York Time s, coordinated with a book launch, has more to do with publicity than the truth. John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton’s purported August conversation with the President. Nor did Mr. Mulvaney ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating that Ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 election. Furthermore, Mr. Mulvaney has no recollection of any conversation with Mr. Giuliani resembling that reportedly described in Mr. Bolton’s manuscript… It was Mr. Mulvaney’s practice to excuse himself from conservations between the President and his personal counsel to preserve any attorney-client privilege.”
The lawyer also said Mulvaney has “no recollection” of a conversation with Trump and the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani about the then-U.S. ambassador
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 27, 2020 15:17:39 GMT -6
Trump Attorney Jane Raskin took to the floor of the US Senate Chamber on Monday afternoon after the first break.
Jane Raskin is an exceptional lawyer.
Jane Raskin laid out the Giuliani timeline on investigating the Burisma corruption and Ukrainian corruption back in 2018.
Raskin then provided evidence via the mainstream media including CNN and The Hill several reports on Rudy investigating Ukraine back in 2018. CNN and the rest of the liberal mainstream media has refused to report this despite their own previous reporting.
Raskin added, “The House Managers didn’t even allude to that option.”
Attorney Jane Raskin then ended with this, “It seems to me if we’re keeping score on who got it right on allegations of FISA abuse, egregious misconduct at the highest level of the FBI, alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and supposed obstruction of justice in connection with the Special Counsel investigation? The score is Mayor Giuliani 4, Mr. Schiff – Zero!”
|
|
