Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, January 26, 2020

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to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Over dozens of pages, Mr. Bolton described how the Ukraine affair unfolded over several months until he departed the White House in September. He described not only the president's private disparagement of Ukraine but also new details about senior cabinet officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement.

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president's lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president's July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote.

I don't find it surprising that more damning information regarding Trump's illicit conduct becomes publicly known seemingly every passing day. Senate Republicans are only setting themselves up for ruin by ignoring the mountain of evidence available to them as they try to hurriedly finish the impeachment trial without hearing from a single witness nor requesting a single document that would shed light onto the events in question.

The truth is coming out regardless and there will be repercussions for those dismissing the obvious for the sake of protecting Cult 45.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-01-26 06:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

You have no right to uncover my wrongs!
~ Biden and their sycophants!

I am waiting until you claim Trump falsified FBI FISA warrants.

Otherwise you just haven't got the goods.

I don't find it surprising that more damning information regarding Trump's illicit conduct becomes publicly known seemingly every passing day.

I don't find it surprising that you consider the FBI falsifying FISA warrants to spy on the President's administration is less of a concern than this hearsay.

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-26 06:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

---- off mackris.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-26 07:18 PM | Reply

Keep it up, Mackris.

#4 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-26 07:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Andrea you are the real crisis actor.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-26 07:43 PM | Reply

The peanut gallery weighs in with nothing, as usual.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-26 07:47 PM | Reply

Trumpturd logic:

Abuse in a FISA warrant application gives Trump carte blanche to extort an ally and to invite foreign interference in an American presidential election.

#7 | Posted by anton at 2020-01-26 09:00 PM | Reply

So according to a Mattress, Trump was acting as a concerned citizen interested only in possible illegalities of another American citizen overseas and was in no way seeking to benefit personally and politically in the coming election by holding up needed military aide to an ally fighting Putin's Russia until that ally, not investigated, but ANNOUNCED an investigation into that other American citizen who just happened to have announced his candidacy for President.

Boy, that Mattress is sure smart!!

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-26 09:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Trump's interest in corruption, foreign and domestic, exists only to the extent he can profit from it.

#9 | Posted by anton at 2020-01-26 09:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

@#2 ... You have no right to uncover my wrongs!
~ Biden and their sycophants!..

Not really.

The impeachment trial is about Pres Trump using US Taxpayer dollars to effectively bribe a foreign president for the purpose of Pres Trump's personal benefit.

The trial is not about the conspiracy theories concerning Mr Biden.

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-26 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

@#8

While there's a little more snark in there for my taste, I will say that you provide quite a good summary of the impeachment proceedings.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-26 10:36 PM | Reply

The peanut gallery weighs in with nothing, as usual.

#6 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

There's nothing to weigh in with, numbnuts.

Every day that goes by adds more evidence to the pile that Trump is guilty as sin.

And that you're a POS for defending him.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-26 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Bolton has no credibility, and is a well known liberal hack. He has wanted to undo the election since the day Trump won. Bolton has 'glamour shot' pictures of Hillary's Kankles up in his bomb shelter.

There are known videos of John Bolton and Kathy Griffin, naked, and hugging trees while eating arugula and drinking Coconut Water. He is a total -------, and is not to be believed...Trumphumper Frog-Marching Society & Patriots Conservatory Band.

#13 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-01-26 11:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

The problem for Pres Trump's supporters is that the alleged statements of Mr Bolton contradict, and rather directly at that, what Pres Trump has stated in his defense.

So here is a person, with first hand knowledge, saying Pres Trump lied, or so it seems.

Some good reporting here:

Bolton alleges in book that Trump tied Ukraine aid to investigations
www.axios.com

...President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton alleges in his forthcoming book that the president explicitly told him "he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens," the New York Times first reported....

What's new: Sarah Tinsley, an adviser to Bolton, told me: "The ambassador's manuscript was transmitted to the White House for pre-publication review by the NSC. The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period. It was sent over there, to the NSC, several weeks ago."

- Tinsley would not comment on the contents of the book reported in the Times story. ...



#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-26 11:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#14 ... he problem for Pres Trump's supporters is that the alleged statements of Mr Bolton contradict, and rather directly at that, what Pres Trump has stated in his defense. ...

... and Mr Bolton is not under indictment, convicted or incarcerated, as so many of Pres Trumps inner circle seem to be...

So that makes his comments believable, right?

#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-26 11:29 PM | Reply

OK, OK, #1 deserves a "snark" flag.

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-26 11:30 PM | Reply

@#16

OK, OK, #1 deserves a "snark" flag.

should be

OK, OK, #15 deserves a "snark" flag.

Good grief.

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-26 11:31 PM | Reply

@#14

Oh, and it seems the Trump White House, after three years, still has leaks...

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-26 11:34 PM | Reply

Oh, and it seems the Trump White House, after three years, still has leaks...

#18 | Posted by LampLighter

I think that every American should feel better knowing that there are still people in the administration who are putting loyalty to their country ahead of loyalty to an individual.

OCU

#19 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-27 01:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here we might have the start of t-rump collecting the rewards of bad person-to-person interaction skills. Bolton was not some peanut weasel like his usual choices and I'd like to see him leave a painful scar on the orange beast and he might be the man to do it after the disrespect and insulting treatment he was dealt.

#20 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2020-01-27 01:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#19 ... I think that every American should feel better knowing that there are still people in the administration who are putting loyalty to their country ahead of loyalty to an individual. ...

You mean what Trump supporters call the Deep State? Those around Pres Trump who tell him that what he is doing is not legal?

Some of those who have resigned their positions instead of executing Pres Trump's illegal orders?

Those people?

Yes, we should be celebrating them for upholding the Constitution instead of ceding to the illegal orders of Pres Trump.

#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-27 02:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Let's see, Combover Quisling released Ukrain aid in 2017 and 2018 without expressing ANY concern over potential corruption. After Vice President Biden announced his Presidential bid on April 25th, he surged to the lead in Dem polls, and easily beat Drumpf in every poll all the way through the date of this call in July. In particular VP Biden was polling very well with white, non-college males in battleground states, Drumpf's people. VP Biden was crushing Hair Twittler in States he MUST win to steal a second term. Fat Nixon is desperate to win reelection because he has a world of legal hurt waiting over the horizon. He's so worried that he took the point on a Russian collusion redux and decided to shake down the new, anti-curruption Ukrainian president for dirt on Vice President Biden.

As proven by Trump University and the Trump Foundation the only corruption Diaper Donnie really cares about is corruption that doesn't benefit him. So don't spin this BS about Drumpf being concerned with corruption, he is the MOST CORRUPT PERSON TO EVER RESIDE IN THE WH.

#22 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-01-27 02:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sorry Dem hopefuls, but this excerpted draft from Bolton's book doesn't mean a thing unless Bolton himself takes the oath.

It's interesting and it's entertaining, but without "the oath," the GOPers would call it a work of fiction by a disgruntled former national security adviser who was fired and has an ax to grind.

So there's no conviction to be had.

And they'd be right (I'm sorry to say). Unless Bolton mans up, this excerpted draft is worth no more (as evidence) than someone flapping their gums.

And the same goes for any other name he calls out in his book.

#23 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-01-27 03:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#23 ... this excerpted draft from Bolton's book doesn't mean a thing unless Bolton himself takes the oath. ...

While I would not go as far as "not mean a thing" I would tend to agree with the sentiment of what I quote.

Ditto for all Pres Trump's comments about the "perfect call" and such.

In other words, if Mr Bolton needs to be under oath, so does Pres Trump.


#24 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-27 03:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bolton's Book ~~ that's a laugh. What's it worth except for some future historical record. Of course, there's always the chance it could lead to other investigations in Trump's second term and second impeachment trial.

Right now, it too little, too late.

Bolton is a greedy coward. He resigned his job as National Security Advisor on moral grounds . . . but he's not so morally grounded that he'd risk losing those $$millions$$ in book sales to save the country RIGHT NOW from a cancer that's metastasizing in the Oval Office every day.

"Greedy coward" is too kind. He's every bit as amoral and black hearted as the object of his revenge.

#25 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-01-27 03:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well this answers the most pressing question about what Bolton will testify to if he gets that Senate subpoena, problem is that spinlessness is a common affliction among GOP Senators. The Dems need to get him in front of cameras in the House if he doesn't testify in the Senate.

#26 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-01-27 04:06 AM | Reply

GUNSLINGER

The majority Senate vote on witnesses hasn't been taken yet. (IMO) They're not going to allow Bolton to testify ~ not for either side.

Not even for a Hunter Biden/Joe Biden tradeoff (it's been offered) whom Trump's attornies know have no exculpating evidence to offer anyway.

Trump might consider a tradeoff for the "whistleblower" but only because he wants somebody he can beat to death and destroy his life. That's the way Trump rolls. (Can you picture Trump as "a dictator?)

#27 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-01-27 04:37 AM | Reply

(Can you picture Trump as "a dictator?)

Comparatively speaking, Dictator Donald Trump would make Dictator Vladimir Putin look like a choirboy.

#28 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-01-27 04:46 AM | Reply

It's always puzzled me why Bolton was ever chosen by Trump to serve in his administration, given his connection to the Bush admin.

#29 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-27 10:06 AM | Reply

Glenn Kirschner @glennkirschner2

By sending this tweet, the self-proclaimed "very stable genius" just waived any lingering claim that he could stop Bolton from testifying based on executive privilege. Well done, Mr. President.

twitter.com

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's always puzzled me why Bolton was ever chosen by Trump to serve in his administration, given his connection to the Bush admin.

#29 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Agreed. If his stated intent was to avoid any new military entanglements abroad why in the heck would he pick a war-monger? Makes no sense.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Agreed. If his stated intent was to avoid any new military entanglements abroad why in the heck would he pick a war-monger? Makes no sense.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020

1) Trump has no philosophical avoidance to war. Trump floats valueless atop the sea of personal needs.

2) Bolton no doubt praised his genius ay one point. Trump is such a mark.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-27 10:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I struggle to see the importance of Bolton's testimony.

Anyone being remotely honest already knows Trump tied Ukraine's military aid to opening/announcing these investigations. It has been eatablished in painstaking detail. And anyone who won't admit that, isn't going to be convinced to do so by Bolton.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 10:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If Dems were smart they would avoid the Bolton red herring.

I'd love to be wrong about how poorly they're playing this.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 10:36 AM | Reply

Anyone being remotely honest

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2020

You put your finger on it. Bolton's testimony is intended for those with no honesty at all. One less rock to hide under.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-27 10:39 AM | Reply

If Dems were smart they would avoid the Bolton red herring.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2020-

Despite my joy at Bolton's vindictiveness under-cutting Trump's vindictiveness, both men are moral sumps. No one should trust any farther than they can spit.

#36 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-27 10:40 AM | Reply

Bolton's testimony is intended for those with no honesty at all. One less rock to hide under.

I think you missed my point. Anyone who doesn't believe Trump tied Ukraine aid to investigations isn't saying "now if BOLTON says something, THEN i'll be convinced." These people will just continue making excuses. Forever.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 10:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If Dems were smart they would avoid the Bolton red herring."

Maybe Bolton isn't a red herring but a trap. GOP uses him in a swap to get testimony from witnesses they want. Bolton says a few things that hurt Trump, which GOP Senators ignore, and in exchange they get to call Joe & Hunter Biden, etc. and turn the whole trial into a farce/spectacle.

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 10:50 AM | Reply

#38 I say this because I heard Robert Costa say last week that people close to Bolton point out that Bolton will never move to take down Trump because Bolton wants to keep working in GOP circles, something he won't be able to do if he is seen as undercutting Trump in a significant way.

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 10:53 AM | Reply

Bolt-on apparently didn't think this would come out until after the trial.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 10:55 AM | Reply

These people will just continue making excuses. Forever.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 10:44 AM

Yes, I agree. The people you are talking about are cynical losers.

But, to the extent there is citizenry out there that does not want to be identified with cynical losers, that's good news for Democratic chances, large and small "D", come November.

#41 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-27 10:56 AM | Reply

Bolt-on apparently didn't think this would come out until after the trial.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 10:58 AM | Reply

Is anyone investigating the possible quid pro quo involved in Trump giving anti-tank missiles in exchange for stopping Ukraine from cooperating with the Special Counsel investigation of Paul Manafort?

#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 11:23 AM | Reply

#25
"He's every bit as amoral and black hearted as the object of his revenge."

When your enemies are fighting and killing each other , stand back and wait.

#44 | Posted by randomcanyon at 2020-01-27 11:24 AM | Reply

and turn the whole trial into a farce/spectacle.

That is what it has been from the start.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 11:26 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

in exchange they get to call Joe & Hunter Biden

I would never make that deal if i were the Dems.

If i conspire to murder someone, the charges are "conspiracy to commit murder." I don't get to drag my intended murder victim into my trial to try to prove they were actually a very bad guy who deserved to be murdered. That's not how "relevance" works.

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 11:36 AM | Reply

What's relevant to rwingers is that Bolton is one of them; if he turns evidence on Trump, that could make a difference in the trial... maybe.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 11:40 AM | Reply

Is anyone investigating the possible quid pro quo involved in Trump giving anti-tank missiles in exchange for stopping Ukraine from cooperating with the Special Counsel investigation of Paul Manafort?
#43 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

The reason I asked this is because this morning Trump was bragging about releasing the Javelins:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

...(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.
12:18 AM Jan 27, 2020Twitter for iPhone

If that release was a part of Trump corruption actions with regard to Ukraine, the American people should know.

#48 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 11:41 AM | Reply

Trump's interest in corruption, foreign and domestic, exists only to the extent he can profit from it.

#9 | Posted by anton at 2020-01-26 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the comprehensive list of corruption investigations other than Biden since taken office:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

That's it.

#49 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-27 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Jeff,

What would you have done to keep this from turning into a clown show?

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-27 12:14 PM | Reply

.... and again: scontent.fhhr1-2.fna.fbcdn.net

#51 | Posted by MSgt at 2020-01-27 12:28 PM | Reply

"Bolton has no credibility, and is a well known liberal hack."

Which makes him a conservatives conservative.

It is still going to be tough to say Bolton was a never T-rumper and cannot be part of the mythical Deep State.

It's gonna be tough to call him a liar.

The aftershocks from this have not slowed down yet. Much to the chagrin of ------- everywhere. Humpy is in real danger here. Bet he never imagined it would cone down to this and that this could happen to him (i.e. one of his faithful minions actually ratting him out) when he made that "perfect call".

By the way. When will we see the ACTUAL transcript of that "perfect call"

A perfectly done call would have a perfectly done transcript. Not something with many sections left blank. Or ... have we all forgotten? Or are we just being deflected and manipulated.

Release the Actual Transcript! Let America decide.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-27 12:29 PM | Reply

What would you have done to keep this from turning into a clown show?

#50 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

On the House side:
keep the hyperbole to a minimum.
Take the time to get a court order to subpeona witnesses and documents that they are now claiming are necessary.
Allow the minority to call witnesses.
Don't coach witnesses on what to say in the middle of testimony.
Don't do poll-testing to figure out which terms to use to describe high crimes and misdemeanors.
Don't have closed door testimony and then selectively leak the testimony for partisan effect.
Allow the Executive to present a defense to the House.
Don't bitch about Senate protocols that were voted 100-0 for Clinton's impeachment.
Don't grossly distort the call transcript and when called out for it shrug it off as a parody.
Don't pass out impeachment pens and cheer when articles are brought.
Don't coach members of your caucus to act solemn - the fact that it had to be said is a clear indication that this is anything but a solemn act for House Democrats.
When presenting to the Senate don't repeat yourselves over and over again.
When presenting to the Senate don't insult the very people who you are trying to persuade.
Don't bring an article of impeachment for obstruction of congress when there has ALWAYS been tension between the 2 branches of government over claims of Executive privilege.
Don't lie about not knowing the identity of the whistleblower.

This applies to Senators on both sides - don't proclaim your mind is already made up prior to the commencement of these hearings.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 12:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Interesting and somewhat disturbing detail is that Bolton's publisher submitted this manuscript to the National Security Council for "standard prepublication security review" (i.e. make certain nothing classified was in it) and it was from there it was leaked to the NY Times. Deep State conspiracists are going to have a field day.

#54 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2020-01-27 12:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"-------" should have been R-tards. No matter. Both will probably be censored errr, "moderated" anyway.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-27 12:33 PM | Reply

Deep State conspiracists are going to have a field day.

#54 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Like they aren't already?

Good luck making Bolton be from the "Deep State".

#56 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-27 12:34 PM | Reply

That's not how "relevance" works.

#46 | POSTED BY JOE

What they would try to do is show that the Bidens/Burisma/Ukraine government were in a corrupt arrangement which would they would then argue that calling for investigation into it was justified

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 12:35 PM | Reply

#57

That's just SO funny! Do you do stand up, too, or just sit down?

"So according to a Mattress, Trump was acting as a concerned citizen interested only in possible illegalities of another American citizen overseas and was in no way seeking to benefit personally and politically in the coming election by holding up needed military aide to an ally fighting Putin's Russia until that ally, not investigated, but ANNOUNCED an investigation into that other American citizen who just happened to have announced his candidacy for President.

Boy, that Mattress is sure smart!!"

I was sure you were smarter than a Mattress.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 12:38 PM | Reply

It's being reported that Bolton got an agreement with the Trump White House in 2018, when he first went to work at the NSC, that if and when he decided to write a future book, that the White House would have ONLY 30 days to review his manuscript and that the review would be confined to only assuring that no classified material was being compromised. So Trump knew from the start that Bolton was going to be a potential problem long term and he hired him anyway. And on top of that, Bolton submitted his manuscript to the White House at the end of December, so the clock is ticking. It also means that Trump and the White House, and I assume his defense team and certain Republican Senators, have known all along what was going to be in Bolton's book and they went ahead anyway with their defense that Trump did nothing wrong. They've set themselves up big time.

OCU

#59 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-27 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#58 I was engaging in explanation, not advocacy.

#53 I'll add:

When called out for a rushed House inquiry don't make the argument that it was rushed because POTUS represents an existential threat to the country and then sit on articles for a month while the Speaker tries to pretend she's also Senate majority leader.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 12:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Interesting and somewhat disturbing detail is that Bolton's publisher submitted this manuscript to the National Security Council for "standard prepublication security review" (i.e. make certain nothing classified was in it) and it was from there it was leaked to the NY Times. Deep State conspiracists are going to have a field day.

#54 | Posted by MUSTANG

It just goes to show the American people that there are individuals inside the Trump White House who are still willing to put their loyalty to the country ahead of their loyalty to Trump. This should be be seen as good news for us all.

OCU

#61 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-27 12:46 PM | Reply

- explanation, not advocacy.

Yeah, that seems to be your excuse these days when supporting all of Trump's talking points.

I mean, I know it's hard to be a conservative these days, but....

"I've been out walking
I don't do too much talking, these days "
These days ...

These days I seem to think a lot,
About the things that I forgot to do
And all the times I had the chance to"

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 12:52 PM | Reply

You misconstrued my post so I offered clarification.

You can either take me at my word - a courtesy I've always extend to you - or you can call me a liar. Your choice.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 12:57 PM | Reply

I mean, I know it's hard to be a conservative these days

Actually, it's never been easier.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 12:58 PM | Reply

#64

When conservatives have foisted off Trump as Leader of their Party and President on this country?

How can it be easy to feel the need to defend everything he does while claiming not to support him?

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 01:01 PM | Reply

#63

I don't think I'm alone here among libs who have shown you respect in the past, but wonder how you can continue to mimic Trump's talking points.

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 01:03 PM | Reply

#64 I don't do that. I frequently criticize him because a fair amount of the things he says and does warrants it. Having said that, he fires off a couple of nice tweets about Kobe Bryant and TDS-er's freak out.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 01:03 PM | Reply

- I don't do that.

C'mon, man. 53 is all pure Official Trump Talking Points, most of which have been debunked here ad infinitum.

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 01:06 PM | Reply

#66 If you re-read the original post you were responding to you'll find I was very careful with my words. Seriously, if take another look and read it slowly. It was only a couple of sentences.

What they would try to do is show that the Bidens/Burisma/Ukraine government were in a corrupt arrangement which they would then argue that calling for investigation into it was justified

#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I was explaining what the GOP would hope to accomplish by calling the Bidens as witnesses.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 01:07 PM | Reply

#68 The optics of the Biden/Burisma thing are bad.

I'm well aware that other European countries and international wanted this Shokin guy fired for corruption - a fact which offers justification for the former VP's actions.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 01:09 PM | Reply

You are promoting Trump's lawyer's talking points no matter how you frame them.

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 01:11 PM | Reply

Said lawyers are now on TV saying that Trump's actions were based on, "his deep policy concerns" ie; corruption in Ukraine.

Now, anyone who buh-lieves that is operating on empty mentally.

#72 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 01:14 PM | Reply

Actually, it's never been easier.

#64 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Defending a corrupt president who has new allegations of corruption coming out every day must be easy when you just stick your head in the sand and go na na na!

Just ignore the elephant in the room. You and I both know...Witnesses and documents are necessary for a fair trial.

One wonders if you have the energy to carry this criminals water for him after years of seeing the criminal hits that just come on keep coming.

There will be a morning after this impeachment. And after that Trump will still be impeached. Forever. And there will be a morning after that and one after that, etc.

As Bolton is soon going to prove Trump cannot hide from his crimes forever. They will follow him to his grave and beyond. Forever is a long time. Or so I have been told.

Hope you and he both enjoy your life of T-Rump breaking the law and you denying his crimes.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-27 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71 I'm not promoting anything.

#73 I have no problem with documents being presented or with witnesses being called.

I think the obstruction of congress article is a stupid joke but I do think the abuse of power article is legitimate.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 01:24 PM | Reply

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 01:24 PM | Reply

italics off

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 01:25 PM | Reply

I think the obstruction of congress article is a stupid joke but I do think the abuse of power article is legitimate.
#74 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Good thing he was impeached.

Thank you for your detailed response, BTW.

#77 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-27 02:00 PM | Reply

Byron York @ByronYork

Much talk about WH claims of privilege if Bolton testifies. But Bolton has already changed the game. He has put down his account on paper. That written account has circulated. Cat is out of the bag. Public needs to see it now.

6:16 AM - 27 Jan 2020

#78 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 02:07 PM | Reply

Trump's guilt at this point is so obvious that it is laughable. We don't need John Bolton's first person confirmation of what everybody already knows to prove it further. The reality remains, Republicans just don't care. They do not care. Eye witnesses, recordings, photos, overheard statements, official documents and the truth be damned. Republicans do not care. They just want to "win" and they will say anything and lower themselves to whatever level is necessary to achieve their goals. At this point I do not see how any supporter of Trump can consider themselves to be a true Christian.

#79 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-27 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Trump had just killed just a few more Iranians Bolton might have had his editor go in and change a few of his recollections at the last minute...

#80 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2020-01-27 02:08 PM | Reply

79
They're like black people during and after the OJ trial.

#81 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2020-01-27 02:08 PM | Reply

"They're like black people during and after the OJ trial."

I would have found OJ guilty simply for the fact that he spent the majority of his career playing for Buffalo.

#82 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2020-01-27 02:16 PM | Reply

82

I was going to say for retribution for the Naked Gun movies.....

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-27 02:17 PM | Reply

I would have found him guilty because he tried to turn Ron and Nicole into human pez dispensers.

#84 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2020-01-27 02:19 PM | Reply

"I would have found him guilty because he tried to turn Ron and Nicole into human pez dispensers"

And what made him do that? Playing for Buffalo. Remove the 1970s-era Bills in any equation and OJ becomes sane enough to perhaps assault, but not kill.

#85 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2020-01-27 02:27 PM | Reply

#79 | POSTED BY MODER8

The problem is public opinion. Last Quinnepac pole I saw opposition to impeach and remove was at 51%.

You're never going to get 2/3 of the Senators to vote to remove a sitting president with those numbers.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:29 PM | Reply

#86: You are right. And that is because, as I lay out in #79, REPUBLICANS JUST DO NOT CARE. Republican partisans don't care if the Lord Jesus Himself tells them how guilty Trump is. They have placed their partisanship above country, above truth and above God.

#87 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-27 02:33 PM | Reply

The problem is public opinion.

Republicans are doing everything within their power (and then some) to make sure that needle doesn't move. And you're regurgitating their arguments on the regular, under the guise of "just telling us what they will say."

#88 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 02:34 PM | Reply

Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson

When you've lost Andy McCarthy...

Bolton Blows Up Trump Team's Foolhardy Quid Pro Quo Defense

www.nationalreview.com

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 02:36 PM | Reply

Mod8 Independents are pretty evenly split on the issue.

#88 There is no "guise", Joe. Do you think they will try to do something different than what I've described if they manage to get the Bidens to testify?

I laid out a hypothetical. Apparently doing so is triggering to some on this site.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:39 PM | Reply

Last Quinnepac pole I saw opposition to impeach and remove was at 51%.
#86 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Jeff believes public opinion means more than the law.

It's an interesting, if not desperate, statement.

By the way, I'm not sure where your unsourced information comes from. Here. Try reading this.

Fifty percent told Fox News that Trump should be convicted and removed, and 44% said he should not. Registered voters' impeachment opinions largely fell along party lines, with 81% of Democrats favoring the president's removal and 84% of Republicans opposing it. Independents said Trump should be removed by a nearly 20-point margin, with 53% in favor of conviction and 34% opposed.

www.usatoday.com

#91 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-27 02:41 PM | Reply

Mod8 Independents are pretty evenly split on the issue.

No, they're not.

Stop lying Jeff.

#92 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-27 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- I laid out a hypothetical.

That happened to be 100 percent Trump lawyer talking points. Imagine that.

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 02:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

news.gallup.com

#94 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2020-01-27 02:44 PM | Reply

#93 I'll ask you the same question I asked Joe - do you think my characterization of what they will try to do if Bidens testify is accurate?

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:44 PM | Reply

www.nationalreview.com

#89 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Did you read the piece? It was spot-on.

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:45 PM | Reply

Of course your characterization is accurate. It's just tiresome to watch you make these arguments day in and day out, but claim not to have adopted them.

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#95

I know that your characterization repeats multiple Trump lawyer talking points, most of which are lies, the rest of which are near lies and obfuscations.

The way you frame them is less important than is repeating them ad nauseum on these pages

#98 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 02:47 PM | Reply

Jeff believes public opinion means more than the law.

Impeachment isn't a legal process, it's a political process.

By the way, I'm not sure where your unsourced information comes from.

See #94.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:48 PM | Reply

#98 Whatever. This has gotten circular.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:49 PM | Reply

The repetition of Trump's lawyer's false talking points on these pages daily has indeed become circular.

#101 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 02:51 PM | Reply

JeffJ, what is sickening about your posts is that you, along with every other Republican and rightwing hack, are willfully avoiding the question of truth and honesty. Just come out and say it. "Yes! Trump is guilty as hell! And I don't care." Just say it. Stop avoiding or dancing around the real issue by talking about poll numbers and levels of support. Because who gives a f**k what those numbers are? The only issues that any person who places country above Party should care about is: did Trump attempt to enter into a quid pro quo with a foreign government in order to get dirt on a political rival? And then did he try to obstruct the investigation into that criminal act?

#102 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-27 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The only issues that any person who places country above Party should care about is: did Trump attempt to enter into a quid pro quo with a foreign government in order to get dirt on a political rival? And then did he try to obstruct the investigation into that criminal act?

#102 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-27 02:52 PMFlag: ReceivedFunnyNewsworthy

Too patriotic for several tens of millions Americans by far.

#103 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-27 02:54 PM | Reply

From Gal's link in #89:

They advanced an argument they didn't need to make, and now it will cost them.
Don't build your fortress on quicksand.

That's been my unsolicited advice for President Trump and his legal team. You always want the foundation of your defense to be something that is true, that you are sure you can prove, and that will not change.

Instead, the president and his team decided to make a stand on ground that could not be defended, on facts that were unfolding and bound to change. Last night, that ground predictably shifted. In a soon-to-be-published memoir, former White House national-security adviser John Bolton asserts that the president withheld $391 million in defense aid in order to pressure Ukraine into investigating Trump's potential 2020 election opponent, former vice president Joe Biden.

For months, I've been arguing that the president's team should stop claiming there was no quid pro quo conditioning the defense aid Congress had authorized for Ukraine on Kyiv's conducting of investigations the president wanted. Trials and impeachment itself are unpredictable. You don't know what previously undisclosed facts might emerge during the trial that could turn the momentum against you. So you want to mount your best defense, the one that can withstand any damaging new revelations. [snip]

resident Trump and his advocates would not content themselves with a strong defense built on what was true. The president wants total vindication, which is not necessary in order to avoid removal from office. So he has mounted his defense on the impossible propositions that his interaction with Zelensky was "perfect" and that there was no quid pro quo.


#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:56 PM | Reply

#102 I'm talking about political reality. You are NEVER going to get 2/3 of the Senate to convict when half the country opposes that remedy. That is reality. That reality has you so upset is your problem, not mine.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:58 PM | Reply

The president wants total vindication

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 02:56 PMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Which he will in no ways get.

#106 | Posted by Zed at 2020-01-27 02:59 PM | Reply

Do you want to know why about half the public opposes removal? Because, at the end of the day, nothing actually happened. Although he could be lying, Zelensky has never waivered that he didn't perceive any quid pro quo. No investigation took place, nor was it accounted. The aid was ultimately released. Again, that is political reality.

Now, as for me personally, I am not naive. I know what Trump was trying to do and it was unsavory as hell, which makes the abuse of power article legitimate. If 2/3 of the Senate felt that was sufficient grounds to remove the president, I'd be fine with it.

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 03:02 PM | Reply

#107 accounted should be announced.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 03:03 PM | Reply

See #94.
#99 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Thank goodness Chair is here to wipe your ass.

By the way. My #91 is more recent.

And clearly states.

Independents said Trump should be removed by a nearly 20-point margin, with 53% in favor of conviction and 34% opposed.

So. Again.

Stop lying, Jeff.

Who can believe a liar? Not me.

#109 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-01-27 03:03 PM | Reply

#102 I'm talking about political reality. You are NEVER going to get 2/3 of the Senate to convict when half the country opposes that remedy. That is reality. That reality has you so upset is your problem, not mine.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ

No Jeffy. That is not what any of us are upset about. We are upset with your refusal to truthfully acknowledge in a straight-forward manner that Trump is guilty of charges leveled against him by the House. That is what we want. Your refusal to do so, and insistence on trying skew the topic to senate support levels and other bullschitt is what has us upset. At least be truthful about what it is you are doing that is pissing other people off.

#110 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-27 03:03 PM | Reply

- nothing actually happened.

But Judge, it was only ATTEMPTED murder!

#111 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 03:03 PM | Reply

#109 I always look at multiple polls. I poll can be misleading.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 03:04 PM | Reply

I still like the part about how Trump, leader of the most corrupt WH in our history.... was sorely concerned about corruption in the Ukraine.

Which is the basis for his lawyer's defense.

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 03:06 PM | Reply

It's quite possible polling will change now that this Bolton thing is out. Trump's team made the case there was no quid pro quo and Bolton, as a firsthand witness, is saying the opposite. That is a real problem for Trump and his legal team.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 03:07 PM | Reply

#98 Whatever. This has gotten circular.

Nullifidian's Law: The circularity of a retort thread rises exponentially after the first 30 posts.

Fact!

#115 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-27 03:09 PM | Reply

"We are upset with your refusal to truthfully acknowledge...."

Seriously? Moder8 just used the word "we".

Is he speaking for any of you? You're upset with Jeff over his refusal to acknowledge something??

Let me tell you something Moder8....you could never upset me over anything.

#116 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-27 03:12 PM | Reply

Nullifidian's Law: Only suckers actually take a position on any issue, or indicate support for any politician or policy.

Fact!

#117 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-27 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess it's really true......folks come here to get upset at someone else.

Not to learn, exchange differing opinions and perhaps learn from them.....but to get upset at others who have done NOTHING to you....and nothing else.

------- loonybirds.

#118 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-27 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've read that the NYT hasn't actually seen the book firsthand. What they are claiming is in the book is information they got from an unnamed source. Anybody know if any reporter has tried to track down Bolton for confirmation/clarification?

#119 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 03:18 PM | Reply

"That is a real problem for Trump and his legal team."

Why do you say that?
The quid pro quo was already admitted live on TV, months ago.
If that wasn't a problem, this isn't either.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-27 03:22 PM | Reply

Do you want to know why about half the public opposes removal? Because, at the end of the day, nothing actually happened. Although he could be lying, Zelensky has never waivered that he didn't perceive any quid pro quo. No investigation took place, nor was it accounted. The aid was ultimately released. Again, that is political reality.
Now, as for me personally, I am not naive. I know what Trump was trying to do and it was unsavory as hell, which makes the abuse of power article legitimate. If 2/3 of the Senate felt that was sufficient grounds to remove the president, I'd be fine with it.

#107 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Zelensky has a gun to his head as he waits for more aid. And if he acknowledges the quid pro quo but Trump stays, he is screwed. Of course he is saying there was no quid pro quo. His own people are saying the opposite.

But really, what does it matter if Zelensky didn't even know about the quid pro quo? The aid was still withheld to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation.

Furthermore, it makes no difference the aid was later released. It was released after Trump was caught.

You "would be fine" with them removing him. But you seem fine with them not removing him. I think that says a lot about where your loyalties lie.

#121 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-27 03:23 PM | Reply

"I've read that the NYT hasn't actually seen the book firsthand. What they are claiming is in the book is information they got from an unnamed source. Anybody know if any reporter has tried to track down Bolton for confirmation/clarification?"

Usually these types of books by govt individuals are vetted beforehand by some sort of national security apparatus-- my guess is the leak came from there or it was done by someone in the Bolton camp to increase sales.

Ahh, lovely to see Trump burned by laissez-faire capitalism.

#122 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2020-01-27 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But really, what does it matter if Zelensky didn't even know about the quid pro quo? The aid was still withheld to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation."

President Z knew. There was testimony that indicated his aides knew, which means he did too.

#123 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

On the House side:
keep the hyperbole to a minimum.
Take the time to get a court order to subpeona witnesses and documents that they are now claiming are necessary.
Allow the minority to call witnesses.
Don't coach witnesses on what to say in the middle of testimony.
Don't do poll-testing to figure out which terms to use to describe high crimes and misdemeanors.
Don't have closed door testimony and then selectively leak the testimony for partisan effect.
Allow the Executive to present a defense to the House.
Don't bitch about Senate protocols that were voted 100-0 for Clinton's impeachment.
Don't grossly distort the call transcript and when called out for it shrug it off as a parody.
Don't pass out impeachment pens and cheer when articles are brought.
Don't coach members of your caucus to act solemn - the fact that it had to be said is a clear indication that this is anything but a solemn act for House Democrats.
When presenting to the Senate don't repeat yourselves over and over again.
When presenting to the Senate don't insult the very people who you are trying to persuade.
Don't bring an article of impeachment for obstruction of congress when there has ALWAYS been tension between the 2 branches of government over claims of Executive privilege.
Don't lie about not knowing the identity of the whistleblower.
This applies to Senators on both sides - don't proclaim your mind is already made up prior to the commencement of these hearings.

#53 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I want to point something out. You keep posting this kind of thing. But you are confusing the role of the House and Senate.

The House is only supposed to conduct an investigation, identify evidence, and find sufficient grounds to send the Articles to the Senate. They aren't holding a trial. They aren't there to give the President due process. That's also why they don't convict or vote on punishments. The House isn't there to turn over every stone.

You keep making a big deal of witnesses. But the Republicans didn't have anyone to call besides legal experts and the Bidens.

You keep telling the Dems to go to Court to enforce subpoenas. That would take years. More importantly, its not the House's job to get all the evidence. They had MORE than enough to charge Trump with the two Articles.

The Senate is the one who is supposed to conduct the trial. They are supposed to call witnesses and take evidence from both sides to determine guilt.

The House did its job. The Senate is refusing.

#124 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-27 03:35 PM | Reply

"Now, as for me personally, I am not naive. I know what Trump was trying to do and it was unsavory as hell"

Then why don't you support removing him?
Why tolerate his crimes?

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-27 03:43 PM | Reply

#124. The Constitution doesn't spell out how the House is to conduct impeachment inquiries or how the Senate is to conduct impeachment hearings. Also, it would have taken months, not years to get a court order to subpoena witnesses.

Had all of my criticisms been heeded the House not only would have produced a stronger case but a more credible case. Yes, it would have taken longer but impeachment is not a process that should require haste. So far the Senate has handled the hearing exactly as laid out in the Clinton protocols.

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 03:48 PM | Reply

I sure hope the water Jeff is carrying for Trump is from Trump's slop jar.

#127 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-27 03:49 PM | Reply

#125

The reason I don't explicitly support his removal is because, at the end of the day, nothing actually happened.

#128 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 03:49 PM | Reply

#128 Only because someone outed the scheme.

The problem with Trump continuing to be President is that you know his "unsavory" deeds are not limited to this incident.

You seem incredibly desperate to find some nonsensical reasons not to support the removal of the biggest POS in our White House's history. Nobody is buying your garbage anymore.

#129 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-27 04:02 PM | Reply

Here's what I want. To hear from witnesses.........and couldn't care less about the Senate vote because you're not getting the 75% for removal. Republicans can simply say this was bad, but not worthy of impeachment.

Having said that, we all agree impeachment is a political process. Trump gets to stay President. But it also should be revealed what really went on, so voters can decide.

A political process indeed.

#130 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-01-27 04:03 PM | Reply

#128 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Only because he was quite literally caught with his hand in the cookie jar by the whistleblower coming forward. If he gets away with it he will absolutely do it again. Without removal we are just waiting for the next time.

#131 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-01-27 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- nothing actually happened.

"But Judge, it was only ATTEMPTED murder!"

Giving Trump the green light to continue asking Russia, China, and bribing the Ukraine to interfere in this election is becoming an accessory to impeachable, and criminal, offences.

#132 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 04:04 PM | Reply

Really proud of a moderate conservative like Girl Idaho putting her country first.

Shame on you, Jeffy!!

#133 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-27 04:05 PM | Reply

128

I think the attempt is worth the investigation and the process. It can't go unaddressed.
I'm not begging or hoping for an outcome. Rather, I am glad the process has continued.

#134 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-27 04:07 PM | Reply

"What they would try to do is show that the Bidens/Burisma/Ukraine government were in a corrupt arrangement which would they would then argue that calling for investigation into it was justified"

Trump's had already been told multiple times by his first homeland security advisor that idiotic theory was completely debunked:
www.nytimes.com

#135 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-27 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"in exchange they get to call Joe & Hunter Biden"

As long as folks who have no connection to Trump's behavior are fair game, how about calling Jared Kushner regarding his business deals with Saudi Arabia?

Or maybe Joe Biden can ask Iran to hack into Saudi Arabia to dig up the dirt. He can promise arms sales to Iran if the dirt is good enough, because...that's all okay, now.

#136 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-27 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"- nothing actually happened."

That's like claiming there was no real kidnapping, because you eventually released the hostage.

#137 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-27 04:30 PM | Reply

I think the obstruction of congress article is a stupid joke but I do think the abuse of power article is legitimate.
#74 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

And that is why your opinion means squat to me.

Obstruction of Congress in its oversight duties is a crime. Just as abuse of power is also a crime.

If T-rump gets away with his obstruction of Congress in its legitimate attempts uphold their oaths of office to check Presidential abuse of power (that you agree is a crime?) then America will be a very different place than the founding fathers intended.

The president is not a monarch or an oligarch. The office of the President will never be the same after T-rump shreds the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect.

#138 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-27 05:01 PM | Reply

This:

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance

Assume Hunter Biden committed crimes in connection with Burisma. Assume the FBI somehow missed it. Why is Trump's response is to ask Ukraine to investigate (with strings attached) instead of making sure it's referred to US law enforcement for investigation? Not a defense.

#139 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-27 05:08 PM | Reply

Obstruction of Congress in its oversight duties is a crime. Just as abuse of power is also a crime...

#138 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Please name for me a single president in your lifetime who didn't claim executive privilege during a congressional investigation in order to prevent turning over documents and witness testimony?

They are co-equal branches of government. The Executive doesn't all of a sudden become subservient to congress just because he's a Republican.

#140 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 05:26 PM | Reply

"The reason I don't explicitly support his removal is because, at the end of the day, nothing actually happened.
#128 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

What do you mean, nothing actually happened?
Did aid get held up illegally, yes or no?

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-27 05:29 PM | Reply

"The Constitution doesn't spell out how the House is to conduct impeachment inquiries or how the Senate is to conduct impeachment hearings."

Much is spelled out.

1.3.6. spells out explicitly why your "I don't really mind the crime" defense is not permissible.

1.3.6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-27 05:34 PM | Reply

"Please name for me a single president in your lifetime who didn't claim executive privilege during a congressional investigation in order to prevent turning over documents and witness testimony?"

Trump's impeachment is serving as the GOP revenge and remedy for Watergate.
As in, the legal and political circumstances that led to Nixon's resignation in disgrace will henceforth no longer apply to the President.

Congratulations, you built that!
#MAGA

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-27 07:03 PM | Reply

The House hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt the indictments.

Having been on juries, it's obvious that there is doubt as there is still more calls for evidence.

So, I don't get the guilty decisions being announced.

Would it be acceptable for any Senator to claim the House has proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Not when more evidence is being called for.

Would it be acceptable for any Senator to claim the House has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Absolutely. If I heard, as a juror, the prosecution saying they want more, then they clearly have doubts to put to rest.

They should have gotten that in the House.

#144 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-27 07:10 PM | Reply

Please name for me a single president in your lifetime who didn't claim executive privilege during a congressional investigation in order to prevent turning over documents and witness testimony?

They are co-equal branches of government. The Executive doesn't all of a sudden become subservient to congress just because he's a Republican.

#140 | Posted by JeffJ

Name one that completely blocked ALL witnesses and ALL documents from appearing or being provided for congressional oversight of the executive branch.

#145 | Posted by Scotty at 2020-01-27 09:33 PM | Reply

Trump and Clinton should not have been impeached at all. The crimes leveled at both do not reach the historical level of high crimes.

#146 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-27 09:38 PM | Reply

It also means that Trump and the White House, and I assume his defense team and certain Republican Senators, have known all along what was going to be in Bolton's book and they went ahead anyway with their defense that Trump did nothing wrong.

#59 | Posted by OCUser

I may have been wrong in my assumption. From some reports out there, it appears that Mitch McConnell has indicated in private that he feels he's been misled by the White House. Despite the fact that the White House has known what was in Bolton's book for almost a month now, McConnell seems to be saying that he first heard about this the same time as the rest of us did, that is, when it was disclosed in the NYT over the weekend.

OCU

#147 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-27 09:42 PM | Reply

Name one that completely blocked ALL witnesses and ALL documents from appearing or being provided for congressional oversight of the executive branch.

#145 | POSTED BY SCOTTY

Did that happen with every investigation? I seem to recall the Mueller team getting pretty much whatever it wanted with little resistance. Clinton went to considerable lengths to stonewall the impeachment inquiry - 10 witnesses had to be compelled to testify via court order.

#148 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 10:06 PM | Reply

#145 You act like the House didn't call any witnesses from the WH, except of course for the likes of Vindman or Sondland.

#149 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-27 10:08 PM | Reply

Trump's had already been told multiple times by his first homeland security advisor that idiotic theory was completely debunked:
www.nytimes.com

Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-27 04:25 PM | Reply

This is what happens when President Comacho bases his foreign policy on advice received at 1 am from National Security Advisor Sean Hannity.

#150 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-01-28 07:42 AM | Reply

Trump is totally clueless when it comes to how things work in the real world.

When asked about the possibility that John Bolton might be subpoenaed by the Senate as a witness during the impeachment trial, Trump said the Republicans should only allow that to happen if they first get an agreement from the Democrats that Bolton must swear to tell the truth.

OCU

#151 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-01-28 11:34 AM | Reply

What do you mean nothing actually happened? A corrupt request was made then considered. When the request was not immediately adhered to, military aide was stalled. Those are all happenings and they were all made with the intent of bolstering the president's personal political career. You don't take issue with that because the outcome was not realized as intended, not because nothing happened.

Please try again, JeffJ, if you really care because that load of crap (bold above) is simply not convincing.

#152 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-28 12:03 PM | Reply

I posted this on another thread:

The NYT got its information secondhand and Bolton and his publishers are adamant it wasn't from them.

Given how many so-called "bombshells" over the past 3 years that ended up being either a mere firecracker or an outright falsehood, I'm simply not going to put too much into this until I am given more than hearsay.

Throw in the timing of this leak and how it was reported and, it looks sketchy. It may end up proving to be accurate and if that ends up being the case, fine.

I have a serious question for you folks: Think about how many times a bombshell was reported by the media and your reaction each and every time and how much confirmation bias played a role with your reaction(s) - Given how many times that has happened in the Trump era, do you all think that maybe, just maybe, this Bolton thing should be taken with a big grain of salt?

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-01-28 12:20 PM

#153 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:21 PM | Reply

What do you mean nothing actually happened?

I mean this:

No investigation or announcement of an investigation ever took place. The aid was released without any preconditions.

Trump backed off, perhaps only because the whistle was blown on what he was trying to do, but no form of a transaction in the sense that Ukraine had to give something to Trump in order to receive the aid that congress had already earmarked.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:23 PM | Reply

#153: What a completely dishonest post. Through innuendo you try to suggest that the "Bolton thing" should be taken with a "big" grain of salt. Totally ignoring the fact that source after source after source confirm the "Bolton thing" information. You are such a partisan hack. I'm almost to the point of plonking you.

#155 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-28 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--I posted this on another thread:

There's at least four Bolton threads so you might just as well post it to all of them. Nuke them from space, it's the only way to be sure.

#156 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-28 12:25 PM | Reply

-- I'm almost to the point of plonking you.

#155 | Posted by moder8

Promises, promises. Kinda like Hollywood celebrities promising to move to Canada if the Republican candidate wins the next election. All talk, no action.

#157 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-28 12:32 PM | Reply

Trump backed off, perhaps only because the whistle was blown on what he was trying to do, but no form of a transaction in the sense that Ukraine had to give something to Trump in order to receive the aid that congress had already earmarked.
#154 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Glad you finally acknowledge something actually happened. Can't back away from something when nothing happened in the first place. Pressure was applied inappropriately, and potentially illegally, by Trump upon Ukraine. That happened, regardless if Trump backed off or not. That's a happening whether you consider it or not. Reality takes place whether you or The Trumpers are paying attention or not.

#158 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-28 12:44 PM | Reply

#153: What a completely dishonest post. Through innuendo you try to suggest that the "Bolton thing" should be taken with a "big" grain of salt. Totally ignoring the fact that source after source after source confirm the "Bolton thing" information. You are such a partisan hack. I'm almost to the point of plonking you.

#155 | POSTED BY MODER8

What I'm saying is you are getting your hopes up on hearsay. Given the sheer volume of so-called bombshells that ended up being duds, you really should be somewhat skeptical given this is all secondhand information and the DOJ is adamant that during conversations with Bolton he never expressed the concerns that NYT's unnamed source is claiming. Could the DOJ be lying? Of course.

My motivation? Lowering you folks' expectations. I've seen countless ----------- over bombshell after bombshell that ended up being duds. How many times does that have to happen to you folks before you begin to temper your expectations due to not wanting to get burned, again?

You are a classic case in point and a member of my target audience on this, Moder8. You have emotionally invested yourself in this story and are lashing out at me for simply pointing out that pattern of these bombshells-turned-duds coupled with the fact that all we have at this point on this story is hearsay.

As a defense attorney when your client says the accuser's brother told me x, which is exculpatory, do you call the accuser's sister in to testify instead of his brother?

#159 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:46 PM | Reply

#158 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

That's how I see it as well. Nicely stated.

#160 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:47 PM | Reply

Glad you finally acknowledge something actually happened.

I've acknowledged what you just posted all along. Perhaps I articulated it poorly? Perhaps you missed posts where I spelled all of that out?

#161 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 12:48 PM | Reply

Jeffy: Nobody, - not me, not you, not anybody, expects Trump to be removed from office. It is obfuscating bullschitt on your part to claim that you simply don't want us "to get our hopes up". Give it a rest. Nobodies "hopes are up". You look for justifications to post dishonest views on what is actually going on with this impeachment. By responding to your post, I am giving you a level of respect I am uncertain you deserve at this point. Stop pretending to be impartial while all the while bending every argument to a defense of Trump.

#162 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-28 12:57 PM | Reply

Because you're conflating "no successful transaction" with "nothing actually happened." Which I'm sure many in the House and Senate are hanging their hats on, to the detriment of our governing bodies.

Why is that?

#163 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-01-28 12:59 PM | Reply

Because you're conflating "no successful transaction" with "nothing actually happened."

Poor articulation on my part. I hope my acknowledgement of your #158 as mirroring how I see this offers clarity.

#162 That is a straw man. Please explain how pointing out that all we have regarding Bolton's book at this point is secondhand information is a dishonest view? Also, how is pointing that out a defense of Trump?

Bottom line Trump and his legal team stepped on their jocks by even bringing up quid pro quo and denying it. They now have to deal with this when, had they put forth their best possible defense, this would be a non-issue.

If the possibility exists that members of the Trump team could have construed his intent as trying to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating the Bidens, don't claim otherwise.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-28 01:28 PM | Reply

Bolton should enter the 2020 Presidential race. He'd get nominated as long as he draws this circus out by the left based on their field.

#165 | Posted by wisgod at 2020-01-28 01:40 PM | Reply

"Trump backed off, perhaps only because the whistle was blown on what he was trying to do"

So you're saying there should have been no whistle, and the refs need to pick up the flag.
Got it.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-28 05:25 PM | Reply

No, he's saying run the play before reviewing, Dummy

#167 | Posted by wisgod at 2020-01-28 05:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort