James Comey

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/28/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-recycles-debunked-lie-about-trump-article-ii-powers/

Fact Check: Nancy Pelosi Lies About What Trump, Lawyers Said

CLAIM: Trump’s lawyers argued he has a right to abuse his power as much as he wants, which is also what he said.

VERDICT: FALSE. The statement misquotes Trump’s lawyers and repeats a misquote of the president.


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reacted Tuesday morning to the arguments President Donald Trump’s lawyers put forth in the Senate the day before by lying about what they said, and what Trump said.

The statement is so egregiously false, and so brazen in its re-use of a debunked claim about what Trump said about his Article II powers under the Constitution, that it qualifies to be called a “lie” and not a simple error.

At no point did President Trump’s legal team ever argue that a president can abuse his power. Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz did argue that presidents cannot be impeached and removed for “abuse of power” alone — that there must also be an allegation of “criminal-like conduct.” But at no point did he, or any other member of the president’s legal team, make the argument Pelosi falsely claimed they did.

Second, as numerous fact checks have claimed, Trump never said that Article II of the Constitution — which describes the powers of the president — gave him the power to do whatever he wanted. Pelosi has used this misquote before, and it was shamelessly recycled by House impeachment managers in the Senate last week.

The president was specifically talking about his power to hire and fire executive officials. The context was Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of “Russia collusion.” Trump’s point was that he had allowed Mueller, with a team of anti-Trump Democrats, to investigate him, even though he could have fired Mueller.

The sad truth is that some of Pelosi’s followers will believe her claims, and the mainstream media will not call her out for confusing the public. It is precisely lies like hers that have led the country to this juncture.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/28/tom-cotton-trumps-lawyers-showed-joe-biden-had-a-glaring-conflict-of-interest-impeachment/

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) complimented President Donald Trump’s legal team Tuesday for “taking apart” the Democrats’ case for impeachment and removal, “without belaboring it” as the House managers had done.

Cotton was reflecting after the second day of opening arguments for the president’s legal team, highlighted by former Harvard Law School professors Alan Dershowitz, where Cotton himself had also studied law before joining the U.S. Army and serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.




Cotton said that Dershowitz’s argument that nothing alleged against the president was impeachable was “compelling.”

He was scathing in his criticism of Democrats’ calls for more witnesses in the Senate, after they themselves had decided not to call many of those same witnesses in the House before passing articles of impeachment.

Cotton noted that Senators anticipated hearing from the president’s lawyers for one more day, then two days of written questions submitted by Senators to the Chief Justice, followed by oral answers from the lawyers.

He in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, each party had a chance to ask 53 questions, and the lawyers were restricted to answers of five minutes. He said to expect most Senators to ask questions.

A key development in the Trump trial, he said, was the way President Trump’s lawyers explained former Vice President Joe Biden’s conflicts of interests. House managers would have to explain that, Cotton said.

The Arkansas Senator added that lead House manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) seemed to have earned his “shifty” nickname by repeatedly insisting that Trump had asked Ukraine to “dig up dirt” on his opponent.

“This is not a question of digging up dirt,” Cotton said. The Obama administration, he noted, had concerns about Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, working for the corrupt Ukrainian oligarch who backed Burisma.

He added:

Hunter Biden was working for a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. Days after that oligarch’s home was raised and his property seized by Ukrainian authorities … Joe Biden was on the phone three times with the [previous] president of Ukraine. And lo and behold, three weeks later, that prosecutor was fired. So this is not a question of “digging up dirt.” This is a question of getting to the bottom of what is an obvious and glaring conflict of interest.

Cotton noted that it would have been “unseemly” enough for Hunter Biden merely to be on the board of Burisma, but it was worse that Joe Biden had not recused himself from running U.S. Ukraine policy.



“It’s the most basic step that any member of government would expect to take when their family member is working for a company.”

[soonernvolved]

Love this idea:

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey has reportedly spoken with several colleagues about calling in just two witnesses to President Trump’s impeachment trial.


The influential Republican from Pennsylvania’s plan is ingenuous: Let Democrats call former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Republicans will call former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

Bolton makes claims that Trump really wanted Ukraine to announce it would investigate Burisma, a corrupt company that employs Hunter Biden, paying him $50,000 a month. Bolton says Trump wanted to hold $391 million in U.S. aid until the probe was announced.

But Hunter Biden would be a far more devastating witness. While Bolton will likely come off as a hostile witness — Trump fired him from his post and had some unkind things to say — Hunter Biden could deliver a slew of hitherto unheard testimony that could change the entire story altogether.

“Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a ‘one-for-one’ deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called, according to the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations,” The Washington Post reported. “He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump, the officials said.”

Toomey has spoken about his idea with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and others, the officials added. …

Separately, two Senate GOP aides, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, said Romney is in touch with Toomey and generally supportive of a witness deal that he believes is fair to the GOP but has not yet signed on to any specific plan.

The proposal also came up in private conversations at Monday’s closed Senate GOP lunch, according to the officials and a Senate aide briefed on the meeting.

McConnell is reportedly not a big supporter of the proposal, putting the brakes on until the matter is formally taken up the issue later this week.

Still, Toomey’s willingness to discuss bringing in witnesses, even under a “one-for-one” scenario, raises new questions for Trump’s team and Democrats as the trial proceeds. Will more Republicans join in and call for a contained and brief witness arrangement, such as Toomey has outlined to his colleagues? And would Senate Democrats be open to a trade after weeks of sharply criticizing Republicans for seeking witnesses they see as irrelevant to the trial?

Romney and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said early Monday that they expected other Republicans to back a push for new evidence, but they did not specify Toomey as one of the Republicans who might call for witnesses.

Those statements came after new revelations from former national security adviser John Bolton, who in his forthcoming book alleges that Trump directly tied the holdup of nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine to desired investigations of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/28/rand-paul-trump-sue-chuck-schumer-defamation/



Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul got a little heated Tuesday on Fox News, saying that President Donald Trump should sue New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer for defamation.

“You know, I’m offended and shocked that Schumer would be so scurrilous as to accuse the president and his children of making money illegally off of politics when the only people we know have made money off of this have been Hunter Biden and Joe Biden,” Paul said.


“So Hunter Biden makes a million dollars a year, that’s documented, but Schumer simply creates and makes up and says, ‘Oh, maybe the president’s kids are making money.’ John Bolton is making money as we speak. He has probably already gotten the several million dollar advance for this book. He’s making money by testifying against the president.”

“The only people we know who have actually made money? Hunter Biden and now John Bolton. And they’re not objective–John Bolton is not objective in any way now that he’s cashing million dollar checks. To have Schumer come up and say out of the blue, ‘Maybe the president’s kids are making money,’ with no evidence at all, that’s defamation and they ought to sue him.”

Indeed, Schumer suggested, with no evidence, that President Trump’s family may have been making money overseas.

“There is nothing in the record about the president’s kids,” he also said. “So Schumer has just created this whole thing out of whole cloth and said, ‘Oh, why don’t we go after the president’s kids?’ We don’t know yet whether or not the president’s dealings with the Chinese president have something to do with the Trumps making money.’ He just made it up! Completely made it up! That’s defamation of character and he ought to go to court and be sued for it.”


Primis Player Placeholder


Paul has been a staunch defender of the president throughout the impeachment proceedings. He has said that he may force a vote to have Hunter Biden testify, and also suggested he may out the CIA whistleblower himself. (RELATED: Rand Paul Says Adam Schiff Is Unifying Republicans When He Talks During Impeachment Process)

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2020/01/28/msnbc-morning-joe-scarborough-dunces-trump-impeachment-lawyers-legal-team/



MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough went on a rant attacking President Donald Trump’s impeachment legal team, calling the group a “confederacy of dunces” Tuesday morning.

The “Morning Joe” co-host’s attack lasted more than six minutes, and he went after multiple legal members’ defenses amid the Senate’s trial.


“He had a confederacy of dunces defending him in impeachment,” Scarborough said as he laughed. “Their arguments were absolutely stunning.” (RELATED: Joe Scarborough Goes Off Rails, Asks Jesus To Forgive Him For Ever Being A Republican)

The MSNBC co-host attacked Ken Starr, one of Trump’s lawyers. He spoke about how the former independent counsel ruined irony during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Starr previously headed up an investigation into the Clinton administration.

“If irony weren’t already dead and buried years ago, it was Ken Starr yesterday talking about how — how abuse of power is not sufficient to impeach a president,” Scarborough said. “You need a crime. He literally dragged the corpse of irony out of the grave.”


Primis Player Placeholder


“He meticulously tied the corpse’s neck bone to the back of a tractor, and he ran that tractor throughout the graveyard of stupidity and ran over every headstone! Before once again kicking dirt on the corpse of irony, again, and putting its bones back.”

Scarborough also pretended to cry over attorney Pam Bondi‘s defense, mocking what she said. Bondi ripped former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, during her speech Monday.

WATCH:

“Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Pam Bondi,” Scarborough began. “This is all I could handle. This confederacy of dunces yesterday. I seriously — these people lowered the collective I.Q. Not only of America, but of the western world, by at least 24 points every hour they spoke on the Senate floor.”

[soonernvolved]

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Tuesday said Trump’s defense team “made a damning indictment of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen” in Ukraine, with Burisma, and he believes GOP senators will likely vote to call in the Bidens, Eric Ciaramella and other witnesses.


President Trump’s legal team went scorched earth on the Biden crime family on Monday, on day two of the president’s defense during the Senate impeachment trial.

Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann both exposed Hunter Biden and his pay-to-play schemes in Ukraine and China.

Bondi clearly and concisely showed how Hunter Biden was sitting on the board of a very corrupt Ukrainian natural gas company whilst his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was tasked with handling Ukrainian relations, and especially Ukrainian corruption.

The Senators got to see for the first time all of the bank statements proving Hunter Biden was paid over $3 million in a 17-months time span for sitting on the board of Burisma, despite having zero experience in oil and gas, or with Ukraine.

Mr. Herschmann said on Monday there has never been an investigation into the Biden-Burisma scandal.

“There’s not a scintilla of evidence that the Bidens’ connection to the Ukraine was inappropriate, there’s a tsunami of evidence,” Graham said. “The defense team yesterday made a damning indictment of what Hunter and Joe Biden allowed to happen…”

“I’ll make a prediction; they’ll be 51 Republican votes to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower and the DNC staffer at a very minimum,” Graham said.

Lindsey Graham was referring to Alexandra Chalupa, a DNC staffer who met with Ukrainians at the Ukrainian embassy during the 2016 election to get ‘dirt’ on Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort.

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

President Trump Attorney Jay Sekulow took on the John Bolton manuscript rumors on Tuesday afternoon.


On Sunday the New York Times published a leak of alleged descriptions of former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton’s upcoming book on his time in the Trump White House.

John Bolton accused Trump of wanting to tie aid to Ukraine last year with investigations into the Democrats and the Bidens by Ukraine. Trump has denied the accusations made in the leak of the book.

This was a stunning leak by a disgruntled former Trump confidante.

On Tuesday Trump Attorney Jay Sekulow took on the Bolton rumors head on during his opening arguments.

Jay Sekulow: “You cannot impeach a president on an un-sourced allegation. But if Professor Dershowitz is right and if everything in there was true, it constitutionally doesn’t rise to that level… In regard to what John Bolton has said which referenced a number of individuals, we’ll start with the President. Here is what the president has said in response to that New York Times piece. “I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations on 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.” The Department of Justice, “While the Department of Justice has not reviewed John Bolton’s book, the New York Times grossly mischaracterizes what the Attorney General and Mr. Bolton discussed. There was no discussion of personal favors or undue influence on investigations.” The Vice President’s chief of staff issued a statement, “In every conversation with the president and vice-president in preparation to our trip to Poland… The president consistently expressed his frustration that the United States was baring the lion’s share of the responsibility for aid to Ukraine.”

[soonernvolved]

Trump’s deputy counsel Patrick Philbin blasted the unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch who believe their foreign policy disputes with President Trump is an impeachable offense.

Intel community underlings like Eric Ciaramella, Sean Misko, who went from NatSec to work for Schiff, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman plotted to remove Trump from office because they disagreed with the President’s foreign policy related to Ukraine.

According to the Constitution, President Trump sets foreign policy, not unelected staffers who have no accountability to the American people.

“The President cannot defy agencies within the executive branch,” Philbin argued. “Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution vests all of the executive power in a president of the United States — he alone is an entire branch of government — he sets policy for the executive branch.”

Philbin explained that the president is given such vast power because he is elected and accountable to the American people.

The US has an election every four years to keep that power in check.

In contrast, the career bureaucrats are not elected and therefore have zero authority to set foreign policy.

“It inverts the Constitution,” Philbin said of giving unelected bureaucrats power over foreign policy. “The sole power is vested to the President of the United States.”

Case closed.


WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton

Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

And just like that, Feinstein back tracks:

www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-dianne-feinstein-backpedals-i-was-misunderstood-over-trump-acquittal-comments

On Tuesday, the LA Times circulated a story regarding Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) leaning toward acquitting President Donald Trump, who was impeachment in the House last month.


“Just after President Trump’s defense lawyers ended arguments in their Senate trial Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California became the first Democrat to suggest that she could vote to acquit him, despite serious concerns about his character,” the LA Times report stated.

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein was quoted telling reporters on Tuesday, the paper reported. “That was my view and it still is my view.”

“What changed my opinion as this went on [is a realization that] impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves,” she added.

“We’re not finished,” the Democrat told reporters when asked if she’d acquit President Trump.


“There is substantial weight to this and the question is: Is it enough to cast this vote?” Feinstein said of impeachment, adding that she’s “received roughly 125,000 letters in support of the impeachment last week, and about 30,000 against it,” the LA Times noted.

After the report broke and began trending on Twitter, Feinstein took to Twitter to clarify her remarks, backing off any possibility of Trump’s acquittal.


“The LA Times misunderstood what I said today,” she posted. “Before the trial I said I’d keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.”

The LA Times misunderstood what I said today. Before the trial I said I'd keep an open mind. Now that both sides made their cases, it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong. He withheld vital foreign assistance for personal political gain. That can’t be allowed to stand.

— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@senfeinstein) January 28, 2020


In December, the House voted to impeach President Trump on two articles: “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” Not a single Republican voted in favor of impeachment, while multiple Democrats refused a “yes” vote. The Daily Wire reported:

On the first article of impeachment, “abuse of power,” Democrats voted 228–2, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.

The final vote on the first article of impeachment was 230–197–1.

The vote on the second article of impeachment, “obstruction of Congress,” concluded with even more Democrats defecting from their party and voting against impeachment.

The final vote on the second article of impeachment is Democrats voted 228–3, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.

In the Senate, there is less uniformity among Republicans. As noted by The Daily Wire on Tuesday, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) “has embraced the role of leader of the Senate resistance to the party line on impeachment witnesses.”

“The article in the New York Times I think made it pretty clear that [Bolton] has some information that may be relevant,” Romney said Monday, reported Politico. “And I’d like to hear relevant information before I made a final decision.”

The senator also reportedly “made a strong pitch” for calling additional witnesses during a private lunch with fellow Senate Republicans, Politico sources said.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/28/susan-collins-very-likely-i-will-vote-for-witnesses-at-impeachment-trial/

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in comments given today to CBS News said it was “very likely” she would vote for witnesses at the impeachment trial.

Collins said, “ut for the efforts that four of us made to ensure that vote would occur, that it’s unlikely that we would have had that opportunity. I am pleased that every senator will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not additional witnesses and documents are necessary. It is very likely that I’m going to conclude that yes, we do need to hear from witnesses.”


She added, “I, for one, believe that there’s some gaps, some ambiguities that need to be cleared up.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/28/josh-hawley-to-submit-questions-on-adam-schiff-whistleblower-relationship-hunter-biden-burisma-work/

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said Tuesday he will submit a series of questions relating to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) relationship with the intelligence office whistleblower and the House impeachment managers during the next phase of the Senate impeachment trial.

Now that the House Democrat impeachment managers and President Donald Trump’s legal team concluded their opening arguments, Sen. Hawley will submit a series of questions relating to Schiff’s communication with the whistleblower and Hunter Biden’s work with Ukrainian oil company Burisma.




Hawley, a former Missouri attorney general, will ask the House impeachment managers questions relating to the whistleblower:

As Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House Manager Adam Schiff lied about communications with the whistleblower prior to the filing of the whistleblower complaint. Schiff claimed on September 17, 2019, “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to a committee aide prior to filing a complaint. Why did Manager Schiff lie?

The New York Times reported on October 2, 2019, that Representative Schiff learned the “outlines of a CIA officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power” days before the officer actually filed the complaint.

What precisely did Manager Schiff learn in advance?
Did Manager Schiff or any of his staff offer this individual substantive advice on his complaint?
Did Manager Schiff or any of his staff help the intelligence officer draft the complaint in any way or to any degree?
Hawley also plans to ask the Intelligence Community inspector general if he had any contact with Schiff regarding the whistleblower complaint. Hawley asked:

Since September 9, 2019–the date the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community notified the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that he received a whistleblower’s complaint–please disclose and explain any and all contact that any House Manager or their associates or staff have had with any current or former presidential candidate, or candidate’s campaign staff, in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses?

The Missouri Republican also asked, since Democrats contend that withholding foreign aid to Ukraine is an abuse of power, “did then-President Barack Obama or then-Vice President Joe Biden commit such an abuse when the Obama administration withheld aid from the Ukrainian government in exchange for the removal of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General?”

Hawley will ask if former President Barack Obama or the Obama White House knew that former Vice President Biden sought to remove Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin. He asked:



When he took office, Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, vowed to investigate Burisma. Before Vice President Joe Biden sought to remove Shokin, did the White House Counsel’s Office or the Office of the Vice President legal counsel issue ethics advice approving Mr. Biden’s involvement in matters involving Shokin, despite the presence of Hunter Biden on the Burisma board?

Was President Obama aware that Hunter Biden had been appointed to the board of directors of Burisma when Vice President Joe Biden withheld funds from Ukraine in exchange for the prosecutor’s removal? If so, did the President advise Mr. Biden to recuse himself?

Do you agree with Hunter Biden’s statement in an October 15, 2019, ABC News interview that he would “probably not” have been named a board member if his “last name wasn’t Biden”?

Sen. Hawley will ask the White House counsel:

A significant portion of the House Managers’ theory of abuse of power depends on the idea that President Trump improperly withheld defense aid to Ukraine. Did the White House release the funds in question to Ukraine before they expired at the end of the fiscal year, on September 30, 2019? If so, did the Ukrainian government publicly announce any corruption investigation prior to the release?

What, if any, criminal statutes do the House Managers allege President Trump violated?

[soonernvolved]

Democrats and their hack supporters in the media are now trying to push that corruption was not widespread in Ukraine.
They will lie about anything.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) let them have it at the Republican press conference.

Rep. Stefanik: I think you should know, every single ambassador who testified, every single one who worked in our embassy gave examples of corruption. Corruption was widespread… There are ample examples of corruption so much so that n the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act we required that there be anti-corruption efforts which Republicans and Democrats voted for… As we’ve said all along, there was no official investigation into the Bidens, so you should get your facts straight!… The premise of your question is wrong because there was ample examples of corruption. Do you ignore the testimony of ambassadors?

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/trio-democratic-senators-consider-acquit-trump-108130

A trio of moderate Senate Democrats is wrestling with whether to vote to convict Donald Trump in his impeachment trial — or give the president the bipartisan acquittal he’s eagerly seeking.

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land. It’s a decision that could have major ramifications for each senator’s legacy and political prospects — as well shape the broader political dynamic surrounding impeachment heading into the 2020 election.

All three senators remain undecided after hearing arguments from the impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team. But they could end up with a creative solution.

One or more senators may end up splitting their votes, borrowing a move from Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who voted for the abuse of power charge but against the one on obstruction of Congress.

Manchin said he will do that only if he “can explain one and not the other.” Jones has been mildly critical of the obstruction impeachment article and says he’s “troubled” the House didn’t fight harder to hear from critical administration witnesses.

[soonernvolved]

Trump fired Bolton as NatSec Advisor on September 10 and so he called the House Foreign Affairs Chairman on September 23 to tell him to look into Yovanovitch’s ousting.

If this phone call to Rep. Engel was so alarming and so important, why didn’t it end up in the House Democrats’ impeachment case?

Strangely, just one month before Bolton called Rep. Engel, he praised President Trump and called out Ukraine corruption.

Bolton backed Trump during his interview in August and one month later changed his tune and turned on Trump.

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

The US Senate started the question and answer section with President Trump’s legal team and the House managers on Wednesday.


Democrats are having a difficult time with their questions without resorting to lying.


House Manager Val Demings had a horrible time answering her question.

Demings was asked by a Democrat Senator how Ukraine was harmed by a delay in aid for a couple weeks.
She couldn’t answer.
She stumbled through it because there is no correct answer. Demings suggested that Ukrainians died in their war with Russia but those soldiers died during the Obama years.

This was embarrassing.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/29/live-updates-trump-impeachment-trial-senators-ask-questions/

3:05 PM: Graham and Cruz ask the House managers if Mitt Romney’s son had been paid $1 million/year by a corrupt Russian company, would Obama have authority to have the Romneys investigated.

Schiff, changing the subject and not responding to the hypothetical, just says the hypothetical is a bit off and says it is remarkable that we are even having this conversation. He just keeps talking about how Trump was targeting the Bidens. No follow-ups so they can answer questions however they want to…

3:01 PM: In response to a question about if there is documentary evidence that Trump was acting in the national interest, Crow says if this were a specific debate about policy, corruption, burden-sharing, “then lets have the documents that would show that. Let’s have the witnesses that would show that.”

2:55 PM: Cornyn asks what the consequences would be for the executive branch if Senate resolves executive privilege claims without trials in in Article III court.



Philbin warns that it would make the executive less efficient because a president would not be able to communicate in confidence and everything would then have to be tempered.

2:49 PM: Next question to House managers about depositions potentially slowing down process. Carper asks isn’t it true the depositions for the three witnesses in Clinton’s trial lasted one day each.

Jeffries says it is true. He says this is a trial and a trial involves witnesses, documents, and evidence. He says the Senate has had witnesses in every single trial and asks why Trump should be treated differently and held to a lower standard.

2:45 PM: Portman asks Trump’s team the implications of allowing the House to present an incomplete case to the Senate and forcing the Senate to be investigators given all the other legislative work it has to do.

Philbin says this is one of the most important issues the Senate is facing. Philbin says it would be “very grave” to run impeachment in an upside down manner because it would prevent the Senate from conducting its regular business. Philbin says the Senate will take over the investigatory task and all of the regular business will be hindered. He again says Trump would be allowed to call witnesses and “there would be a long list of witnesses” that would take “months.” He warns of the “dangerous precedent” of this “new normal” of allowing the House to dump incomplete articles of impeachment on the Senate. He says it will forever change the relationship between the House and the Senate in terms of the way impeachment is operated. Philbin says it is vital for the Senate to consider the implications of the Senate being “paralyzed” and making it easier for the House to impeach presidents.

2:38 PM: House managers asked to address White House’s argument that this should be left to the voters and impeaching a president voids the last election.

Schiff says impeachment protects the next election and if that is the case, there would be no impeachment clause in the Constitution. Schiff argues if this is what the founders wanted and a president could only be impeached in the second term, they would have said a president could commit high crimes and misdemeanors in the first term.


2:32 PM: Next question from Cotton and other GOP Senators if the House bothered to litigate privilege issues or seek testimony in the month they held up the articles.

Philbin says they did not seek to litigate and did not file anything. He says when litigation was filed by one of the subpoena recipients, he sought a declaratory judgment the House managers withdrew the subpoena so they wouldn’t get a decision.



2:27 PM: Stabenow asks if the House managers would like to correct any falsehoods made by Trump’s team.

Lofgren says Trump’s team claimed the Ukrainians never felt pressured but the Ukrainians were privately pressured and the White House meeting never occurred even though Trump met with Zelensky. She rambles about how Trump appeared to be pursuing corrupt interests and not foreign policy interests.

2:21 PM: Grassley asks if the House’s refusal to enforce subpoenas make the “obstruction of Congress” theory unprecedented.

Philbin says yes. He is unaware of any case where the House issued subpoenas, got resistance, and then threw up its hands, and then claimed obstruction. Philbin says the Constitution requires incrementalism in disputes between the branches and the House never sought accommodation and took the next steps.

2:17 PM: Schumer asks the House managers to respond to Dershowitz.

Schiff says he would be delighted. Schiff says there would be no question Obama would be impeached if he had asked Medvedev to investigate Romney.

2:10 PM: Cruz asks if, as a matter of law, it matters if there was a quid pro quo and whether it is common in foreign policy.

Dershowitz says the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the “quo” was something that was illegal.

2:07 PM: Leahy asks House managers to respond to Trump’s claim that he has treated Ukraine more favorably than his predecessors.

Demings, stumbling a bit, is having trouble responding to a question from a Democrat that there was no harm, no foul. She ultimately says Trump undercut Ukraine’s ability to negotiate with Russia and “there was harm and there was foul.”

2:02 PM: Next question (from Kennedy) to both parties is why did the House managers not challenge Trump’s executive privilege/immunity arguments.



Jeffries claims Trump didn’t raise the executive privilege argument and instead made a “blanket defiance” argument. Philbin says it is “incorrect” that there was no case law from the White House. He cites his presentation in which he put up slides of all of the letters from the White House counsel/OMB/State Department re: invalid subpoenas. Philbin says Schiff never corrected/challenged in court.

1:55 PM: Shaheen asks if a president doesn’t commit a crime, can a president be impeached for abuses of power like ordering an opponent’s taxes to be audit.

Garcia says the short answer is a president can be impeached without statutory crimes. She cites Nixon/Clinton impeachment proceedings. She say a majority of impeachments in the House have included charges that were not statutory crimes. Seems like she had a pre-written response to the question.

1:50 PM: Next question is from Lee, who asks the president’s counsel if it is the president’s place to conduct foreign policy.

Philbin says it is definitely the president’s place to set foreign policy and the Constitution vests the entire authority in the president. He says the president is elected by the people every four years and that’s what gives the president “democratic legitimacy” to have broad executive powers. He says if staffers disagree with him, that does not mean the president is doing something wrong. Philbin says this is important because the House managers are trying to impeach Trump on “some subjective motive” and are trying to prove their case by comparing what Trump wanted to do with what the career bureaucrats wanted. Philbin hammering that House managers are trying to get Trump removed based on “policy differences.”

1:45 PM: Feinstein asks the House managers if it is true, as Trump’s lawyers have stated, that there is no evidence that Trump linked security assistance to any investigation.

Crow says there is overwhelming evidence Trump withheld military aid for personal benefit. Crow says Messrs. Sondland, Pence, Pompeo also were aware of the “conditionality of the aid.”

1:40 PM: Blackburn, Cramer, Lee, Loeffler, McSally ask the president’s counsel if the standard for impeachment in the House is a lower threshold to meet than the standard for conviction in the Senate and whether the House managers have met the evidentiary standard for removal.

Philbin says an impeachment is simply an accusation so the House does not have to adhere to the same standard the Senate must have. He says it is definitely a lower standard than the standard that must be met at a trial. He says there doesn’t need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the House to vote on impeachment. Philbin says in the Senate, the House managers must show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and “they have failed.”

1:35 PM: In response to a question about whether House Managers asked Bolton to testify, Schiff says: “Of course the answer is yes.” Schiff says Bolton refused. Schiff says

1:29 PM: Next up is Thune with a question for the president’s counsel. He wants them to respond to the arguments and assertions the House managers just made in response to the previous question.

Philbin says Schiff suggested that there is no evidence that Trump was interested in burden-sharing because he didn’t raise it in the phone call with Sondland that was overheard. Philbin says the transcript and emails show Trump was concerned about burden-sharing. He notes Trump told Zelensky that Merkel’s Germany was not doing as much as the United States and Zelensky agreed with him on the call.

1:22 PM: Schumer asks the House managers about Bolton’s forthcoming book. He asks if there is any way for the Senate to render a verdict without seeing the relevant documentary evidence and without hearing from Bolton/Mulvaney.

Schiff says “the short answer is no” and there is no way to have a fair trial without witnesses. Schiff says if there is any question about Trump’s motivations, it is necessary to call Bolton.

1:13 PM: Roberts gavels in the Senate. Collins is first up and sends a question to the desk on behalf of herself and Sens. Murkowski and Romney. She asks if Trump had more than one motive for his conduct, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of article I. He says the “Biden situation” is at least worth raising a question about and that means “their case fails.”

Philbin says the standard must be “no possible public interest at all.” He says if there is something that shows a possible public interest motive, “that destroys their case.” He says once you are into “mixed-motive land, their case fails.”

1:10 PM: For some reason, Trump thought it was a good idea to hire someone whose foreign policy views were antithetical to everything Trump campaigned on in his 2016 America-first campaign.

12:50 PM: Senators will have 16 hours over the next two days to ask questions. There will then be four hours of debate on potential witnesses and documents.

[soonernvolved]

pjmedia.com/trending/lol-democrat-just-accidentally-admitted-house-impeachment-case-is-evidence-free/

LOL: Democrat Just Accidentally Admitted House Impeachment Case Is Evidence-Free

There was an unintended moment of levity during a break at the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday.

Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the designated "spin doctors" sent to the microphones to clean up any damage to the Democrats' message caused by President Trump's impeachment attorneys, dropped an unintentional truth bomb during a media interview.

C-SPAN broke away from the proceedings in time to hear Blumenthal say this about the Trump defense lawyers:

It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence – we need the evidence. We need the witnesses and documents... They may have the votes at this moment, but I hope my colleagues will look themselves in the mirror ... [W]hat we want is the truth, not some quid pro quo on the witnesses...
Look what he said about the case. Was he really accusing the Trump lawyers of having a case that was "bereft of evidence"? Look at the next sentence. Blumenthal said, "we need evidence."

The Trump defense team did provide additional information to the Democrat House Managers during the trial, but, while it's politically smart, the burden of proving the case is certainly not on the president's team. It's up to the Democrat House Managers to make their case, which, by Blumenthal's lights, is "bereft of evidence."


Blumenthal's plea for witnesses and documents — "we need the evidence" — only underscores how hastily the House put their "bereft of evidence" case together.

ABC News captured the first part of Blumenthal's remarks, which go after the Trump team:

His Freudian slip is a pretty funny comment about a deadly serious event. And, let's face it, we could use a laugh right about now.

[soonernvolved]

3:38 PM: Senate in recess until 4 PM.

3:32 PM: Harris, who had to get in Trump’s “if you’re a star, they let you do it” remarks before he even ran for office, says Trump’s past statements suggest Trump is above the law. She asks how America’s system of justice would be undermined if the Senate did not hold Trump to account.

Schiff says Trump sees the state as being himself.

3:27 PM: After Nadler rambles about how Trump betrayed the public trust by ignoring the law and Constitution to try to get Ukrainians to do him a political favor, Sekulow now, in response to an open-ended question to respond to previous arguments, says there is no precedent for Roberts ruling executive privilege issues. He calls out Schiff for not responding to the hypothetical about Romney’s son and says Crossfire Hurricane targeted a political rival in response to Schiff’s remarks about how president’s should not call for investigations into their political rivals.

3:15 PM: Trump’s team asked if subpoenas issued before an impeachment resolution is an invalid exercise of power.

Philbin says there has to be some type of rule/resolution to give House committees authority to issue subpoena. He says subpoenas are invalid if the committee cannot trace them back to a rule/resolution as is the case here with 23 invalid subpoenas that were properly resisted.

3:10 PM: Peters asks the managers if a breach of public trust is sufficient to satisfy the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard.

Lofgren says the framers were clear that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

4:27 PM: Trump’s team asked if Ukrainian officials knew about the hold on aid before the Politico article because Laura Cooper received queries.

Purpura says the overwhelming body of information shows that they did not. He said Cooper said he was not certain what the emails were about. Purpura says Ukrainian officials never raised any questions in meetings with U.S. officials about the pause on aid. He says as soon as the Politico article, there were questions about the aid within hours and that is consistent with someone finding out about it for the first time.

4:32 PM: Feinstein and other Dem. Senators ask about Trump’s “blanket refusal” to cooperate and what the consequences would be if Congress allows it.

Lofgren says Trump has taken an extreme measure to hide evidence from Congress. She says even Nixon told his senior officials to testify before Congress. Logren says Trump issued a “blanket order” directing the executive branch to withhold all documents and testimony. She says it could open the door to eliminating impeachment and oversight.

4:27 PM: Ernst and other GOP Senators asks Trump’s team about the Trump administration approval of lethal aid to Ukraine against the advice of the Secretary of Defense.

Philbin says the Trump administration made the decision to send anti-tank Javelin missiles while the Obama administration did not. He says it has strengthened Ukraine’s ability to resist the Russians and cites Yovanovitch’s testimony. Philbin says he thinks it is accurate that Trump made the decision against the advice of the Sec. of Defense.

4:25 PM: Trump’s team asked when it learned Bolton’s manuscript had been submitted to the White House for review and if the White House tried to block Bolton from publishing the book.

Philbin says an NSC pre-publication review found the manuscript contained classified information, including at the top-secret level, that could harm the country and could not be published in its current form without some deletions.

4:21 PM: Lee, Cruz, Hawley ask if there is any reason to believe if the whistleblower coordinated with Schiff’s staff to “take out” Trump.


Philbin says there is no knowledge of that except for what is in public reports. He doesn’t want to speculate because everything has been clouded in secrecy.

4:15 PM: King asks both sides about John Kelly’s recent remarks about the need for Bolton to testify. He asks if they agree with Kelly.

Sekulow says there have been forceful statements about Bolton’s manuscript has been grossly mischaracterized. He says if the House managers get witnesses, the White House would get witnesses and it would change the nature and scope of the hearings.

Schiff says Kelly’s remarks are significant because he is saying he believes Bolton and not Trump. He says the question is whether the Senators believe Bolton and want to evaluate his credibility themselves.

4:07 PM: Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee ask Trump’s which had a greater impact–Trump’s withholding of military assistance of Obama’s denial of “lethal aid.”

Philbin says Obama’s decision was far more serious and jeopardized the Ukrainians more.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/01/29/dershowitz-takes-on-abcs-the-view-over-constitutionality-of-impeachment-offers-1000-bet-on-claim-of-trumps-criminality/

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz got into a heated debate with the co-hosts of ABC’s “The View” over President Donald Trump’s impeachment on Wednesday.

Co-host Joy Behar said, “We just heard you argue in that clip that whatever John Bolton says doesn’t matter. You still don’t think any of this is impeachable, but the only people who actually agree with you are on your defense team. And 75% of Americans want to hear from Bolton. So why should we listen to you?”


Dershowitz said, “Well, I made constitutional arguments. My sole role in the case was to argue the constitutional issues. I would have been making exactly the same argument if Hillary Clinton had been elected president and if she had been impeached for abuse of power, obstruction of congress. In fact, I started doing my research on impeachment and decided to write a book when Hillary Clinton was in the lead, and it looked like she would be elected, and the Republicans were yelling, lock her up and impeach her. Indeed we did a cover, a mock cover for my book, the original title of which was ‘The Case Against Impeaching Clinton,’ Hillary Clinton. So I’m making exactly the same constitutional argument.”

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg interrupted, saying, “OK, here’s the thing, Alan, you’re not going to get any time because you got four people trying to ask you questions, so I’m asking you to move faster.”

Dershowitz said, “I have to make this point. Shortly after the Constitution was enacted, the dean of the Columbia Law School said that the weight of authority was in favor of it being a crime. Now the academics all say it isn’t. Why? Because Donald Trump is being impeached. If Hillary Clinton were being impeached, they’d all be on my side. ”

Behar shot back, “That’s just baloney.”

Goldberg said, “I’m moving you on, or I’m cutting you off. One or the other is going to happen. I don’t want to make this contentious, but we only have several minutes. You’re laughing. I’ve always been respectful to you, and you’ve always been respectful to me. ”

Dershowitz said, “I am. I’m very respectful to you.”

Sunny Hostin said, “You’re arguing now that there was no crime committed here, but the GAO, an independent watchdog said last week that withholding the aid to Ukraine was illegal, a crime.”

Dershowitz said, “No, they didn’t say that. No, no, no.”

Hostin said, “Yes, they did.”

After a back and forth, Hostin said, “Let’s assume that I’m right and you’re wrong and they said that they did. Would that be enough for you?”

Dershowitz said, “Let’s bet $1,000 to be contributed to the peace of Israel and Palestine.”

He added, “They didn’t say a crime. They didn’t say a crime. They have no jurisdiction to conclude it’s a crime. Moreover, the GAO is dead wrong.”

[soonernvolved]

4:45 PM: Cardin and Baldwin ask the managers if the White House is correct that the Ukrainians did not know about the withholding of assistance.

Crow says the answer is no and he proposes the Senate subpoenas Cooper’s emails. He says the Ukrainians were consistently asking about it including American business contractors.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

4:57 PM: Harris and Murray ask the House managers that now there is tape of Trump wanting Yovanovitch fired, will there be new evidence that will come to light after the Senate renders a verdict.

Schiff says there will be new information coming out when Bolton’s book goes public. He says there will be new evidence that will come out all the time.



4:50 PM: Collins, Murkowski ask if Trump mentioned Joe or Hunter Bidens to the Ukrainians before Biden entered the race.

Philbin says Trump spoke about corruption but nothing in the public record about the Bidens.

He also says Senators must take into account the utility of bringing up Biden with Poroshenko and adds Zelensky’s election opened up an opportunity to discuss Hunter Biden’s corruption.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/29/gop-lawmakers-crush-nbc-reporters-aggressive-anti-trump-narrative-in-impeachment-press-conference/

Republican lawmakers took on NBC News reporter Heidi Przybyla when she denied rampant corruption in Ukraine during a press conference Tuesday about the Senate impeachment trial.

The tense exchange took place while Republican Reps. Lee Zeldin (NY), Elise Stefanik (NY), and Mike Johnson (LA) were briefing reporters about impeachment.



Przybyla first asked a question premised on the idea that Trump’s concern about corruption in Ukraine was illegitimate. “Congressman [Zeldin], so, DOD certified this money [military aid to Ukraine] in May,” she began. They said that Ukraine met all anti-corruption standards. So what specifically happened that made the president all of a sudden concerned about corruption? What specific corruption was he chasing at that point?”

Zeldin indicated Trump was interested in corruption allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden, his son, Hunter, and their connection to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Moreover, Trump wanted to learn more about potential 2016 presidential election interference on behalf of Democrats stemming from Ukraine.



Seemingly, the NBC News reporter did not like the response and repeatedly interrupted the lawmakers. “You have to let me answer your questions,” Zeldin vented at one point — his second request for her to stop interrupting him. In response, Przybyla patted his arm, saying, “go ahead.”

“Listen, if I give a good answer, that doesn’t mean that you have to cut me off,” Zeldin continued. “I know that if you let me — if I give a bad answer, you’d probably let me go all day.”

He explained that Ukraine’s parliamentary elections and newly-created corruption initiatives happened within the timeframe designated by Przybyla.

After finishing that answer, the NBC reporter mocked his response: “Biden, CrowdStrike, and what is the other specific corruption?” she asked, leading to a protracted exchange of crosstalk. “I know it’s a hard question. It’s a hard question, ’cause the president’s not on the record mentioning anything other than Biden, CrowdStrike. That’s it. And you haven’t mentioned anything else.”

Zeldin zeroed in on the topic of Hunter Biden, recounting Senate arguments which established the legitimacy of corruption allegations against his work at Burisma. When several reporters chimed in to offer excuses for former VP Biden’s $1 billion threat to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, Zeldin shot back: “Media… You’re doing a great job as Schiff’s shills.” Przybyla replied, “We’re not insulting you, don’t insult us.”

Soon after, Reps. Johnson and Stefanik took the podium, arguing that Przybyla’s dismissal of “CrowdStrike,” or allegations of 2016 election interference, is not supported by the facts. “Zelensky ran on a platform, not unlike Donald Trump, as a reformer,” Johnson said. “The president wanted to make sure that that was legitimate… He was convinced of that fact, and that’s when the aid was released.”

Stefanik recounted the House witness testimony — “which you should know,” she snarked at Przybyla — affirmed “corruption was widespread” in Ukraine. The reporter, undeterred, repeated her objection: “There must be something some kind of answer to what changed after the [DOD] certification.” Stefanik, exasperated, repeated herself: “To form a government that ran on anti-corruption efforts, Zelensky had to form a cabinet. There had to be parliamentary elections. They had to put the high court in place. That wasn’t done until early September, and then the aid was released before the end of the fiscal year.”


“So the premise of your question is wrong,” she continued, “because there are ample examples of corruption. Do you ignore the testimony of ambassadors?” she challenged Przybyla.



The NBC reporter continued interrupting and objecting to Stefanik’s response, leading Johnson to call for the next question.

“This is ridiculous,” Stefanik said. “You need to go back and listen to the testimony. Every single witness has testified–”

“I heard the testimony,” Przybyla said.

“Well, what did the witnesses say about corruption in Ukraine?” Stefanik asked.

“Corruption is a problem and it has been throughout its history,” Przybyla admitted.

NBC News posted edited video footage of the exchange on social media, conspicuously cutting out the lawmakers’ responses. Rep. Zeldin called out the outlet for the deceptive edit and for Przybyla’s “25+ interruptions,” and the reporter insinuated without evidence that Trump only released the aid because “Congress started investigating him” in her reply.

[soonernvolved]

Got to love the internet. From 2010, Bolton admitted he would have no problem lying if he thought it would benefit National Security:

thefederalist.com/2020/01/29/in-2010-fox-interview-john-bolton-confessed-he-would-absolutely-lie-about-national-security-matters/

In 2010 Fox Interview, John Bolton Confessed He Would ‘Absolutely’ Lie About National Security Matters
Fired former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton admitted in a 2010 interview on Fox Business Channel that he would "absolutely" lie to the public and knowingly spread false information if he believed it necessary.
JANUARY 29, 2020 By Sean Davis
In a 2010 interview with Andrew Napolitano on Fox Business Channel, former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton stated that he would have no problem lying to the public if he thought it was necessary to protect national security.

Bolton, who has written a book for Simon & Shuster based on his time working on national security policy for President Donald Trump that is scheduled to be released in March of 2020, also said during the 2010 interview that government secrecy and protection of classified material was necessary to protect the public.


Bolton become a central character in Senate impeachment proceedings against Trump after information about his forthcoming book was leaked to the New York Times just days after Bolton’s lawyer was informed by the National Security Council that his book contained top secret classified information. That book coincidentally was made available for pre-sale on Amazon the same day the New York Times wrote about its leaked contents.

“A diplomat is a statesman sent out to lie for his country,” the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said before touting his own ability to “spin” information without technically lying.



Bolton was specifically invited on to discuss sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables and documents that had been obtained and released at the time by Wikileaks, an act which Bolton characterized as “an attack on the United States.”

“Is it an attack on the United States for us to know that our ally, Saudi Arabia, is actually financing Al Qaeda?” Napolitano asked. “Isn’t that something we would want to know?”

“I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs and possibly for deception where it’s appropriate,” Bolton responded. He then approvingly quoted Winston Churchill’s assertion that “truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.”

“Do you really believe that?” Napolitano responded. “You would lie in order to preserve the truth?”

“Absolutely,” Bolton said. “If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it.”

“Why do people in the government think that the rules of civil society or the laws don’t apply to them?” Napolitano countered.

“Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the Constitution,” Bolton said. “They are dealing in an anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply.”

“But you took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates certain openness and certain fairness,” Napolitano countered. “You’re willing to do away with that in order to achieve a temporary military goal?”

“The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” Bolton responded, quoting former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.

In his forthcoming book, Bolton allegedly makes several claims about private conversations with Trump and the president’s top national security officials regarding Rudy Giuliani, according to the New York Times. Attorney General William Barr and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, both of whom were reportedly singled out by Bolton as parties to these conversations, deny Bolton’s alleged claims.

“John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton’s purported August conversation with the President,” an attorney for Mulvaney said. “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.”

“There was no discussion of ‘personal favors’ or ‘undue influence’ on investigations, nor did Attorney General Barr state that the President’s conversations with foreign leaders was improper,” Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said. “If this is truly what Mr. Bolton has written, then it seems he is attributing to Attorney General Barr his own current views–views with which Attorney General Barr does not agree.”

Trump and Bolton, who was fired by the president last September, famously clashed on foreign policy and national security matters, as Bolton has a reputation for recommending military intervention across the globe.

“[F]rankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.