John Bolton Announces He Will Testify If Subpoenaed
[guest post by Dana]
In a statement released this morning, former Former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who, according to his lawyers, has first-hand knowledge about about “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine, announced that he would testify if the Senate issues a subpoena:
During the present impeachment controversy, I have tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and as former National Security Advisor. My colleague, Dr. Charles Kupperman, faced with a House committee subpoena on the one hand, and a Presidential directive not to testify on the other, sought final resolution of this Constitutional conflict from the Federal judiciary. After my counsel informed the House committee that I too would seek judicial resolution of these Constitutional issues, the committee chose not to subpoena me. Nevertheless, I publicly resolved to be guided by the outcome of Dr. Kupperman’s case.
But both the President and the House of Representatives opposed his effort on jurisdictional grounds, and each other on the merits. The House committee went so far as to withdraw its subpoena to Dr. Kupperman in a deliberate attempt to moot the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction. Judge Richard Leon, in a carefully reasoned opinion on December 30, held Dr. Kupperman’s case to be moot, and therefore did not reach the separation-of-powers issues.
The House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter. It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.
Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.
President Trump, who has pushed for a speedy trial and has accused Nancy Pelosi of being “afraid” to begin the trial, has not responded to Bolton’s announcement – yet.
Of course Bolton’s decision to testify if subpoenaed, puts some pressure on Sen. Majority Leader McConnell and Republicans who have resisted having public witnesses in the Senate trial.
The timing of a trial also remains uncertain. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and it’s unclear if and when she will. Pelosi has demanded McConnell specify the procedures for the trial before she sends the articles to the upper chamber.
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I can’t imagine this leads to removal of Trump, but it still could be a significant game-changer in how Republicans’ vote to acquit is perceived. Mitt Romney has said he’d like to hear from Bolton, and he may not be alone. If 51 Senators vote to hear Bolton testify, he will. And John Roberts would be ruling in the first instance on any invocations of privilege during the testimony — or attempts by Trumpist Senators to object on privilege grounds. And if Trump ran off to federal district court to block Bolton from testifying? First: bad look. Second: I can well imagine a federal district judge saying: “You have the Chief Justice of the United States making rulings on evidence. What do you need me for? Get out of my court!”
To paraphrase Joe Biden’s statement about ObamaCare: this could be a big freaking deal.
(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (643cd6) — 1/6/2020 @ 10:50 amHello, Dana. Feeling better?
nk (dbc370) — 1/6/2020 @ 10:57 amPelosi has held onto the articles long enough. It’s time to get this thing going.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/6/2020 @ 10:57 amIt’ll still be a speedy trial if Bolton testifies. It shouldn’t add more than a day to the proceedings.
I am, nk, thanks. I’m ready for Christmas now!
Dana (643cd6) — 1/6/2020 @ 10:59 amHm:
Dana (643cd6) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:02 am@4. Glad to hear it, Dana. Be wary of a relapse.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:07 amHmm…impeachment is back on the front page.
Time for another airstrike?
Dave (1bb933) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:12 amDana, I wonder if there would be a “protracted legal battle” if the White House challenges Bolton’s appearance. There are two branches of government pitted against the executive, and the Chief Presiding Officer is also the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What higher judicial authority is there?
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:16 amA Trump/ex-Trump official implying they’ll comply w/a subpoena? And leaves a phone message?
LOL. Why now? What’s in this for Walrus Gumbo? The WH can still effort to exert EP through the courts to try to block him from revealing anything–even if he truly wants to.
The first question everyone should ask is what’s in this for Neocon Walrus Gumbo.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:22 amIt’s interesting how intertwined Iran, the Kurds, and proposed Taliban negotiation are with Bolton and the superficially unrelated impeachment.
Bolton will sell more books, sure, but I suspect there’s been some other issue playing out behind the scenes between Bolton’s idea of foreign policy, Russia’s attempt to dictate it behind the scenes, and Trump’s decisions.
As far as why now, the timing seems pretty precise to me. It’s Monday. It’s right after Trump successfully changed the subject from impeachment to ‘democrats are on Iran’s side against the war time leader, support the troops wharggle bargle!’ Bolton’s got a lot of people speculating on TV about the impeachment again. It’s not a subtle effort to undermine Trump’s change of subject.
Dustin (cafb36) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:34 amAs a reminder, Monica Lewinski gave a closed door deposition that was taped during the Clinton impeachment and only the transcript was released to the public after the trial. Bolton’s testimony would likely face the same treatment, or may it may not even be recorded with just a transcript put into evidence.
Xmas (eafb47) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:38 amPaul Montagu: It shouldn’t matter if Bolton testifies or not. All he has to do is go on Tapper or the like for a complete interview.
Responding to a subpoena gives him immunity to any claim that he betrayed confidences etc. Before he had wanted a judge to say that he could disregard a presidential order. Now he’s come to the point of risking it – the chances are very small there could be any repercussions.
I think Bolton (or possibly someone else at his direction) probably has leaked to the New York Times. That could be how we found out about the August 30 meeting, where he and Secretary of State Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper tried to get Trump to lift the hold on military aid to Ukraine (with Pompeo probably reading excerpts from Taylor’s cable out loud) all to no avail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:57 amNk,
I believe you said you’d turn against this sham if Pelosi didn’t submit the articles 2 weeks ago. Still feel that way?
NJRob (2fe7a0) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:01 pm@DCSCA: What Trump official testified:
Gordon Sondland.
Bill Taylor wasn’t quite a Trump official.
George Kent, but he was a career official. And several others like Marie Yovanovitch.
If you count people who have resigned, like Bolton, there’s Kurt Volker and Fiona Hill and Tim Morrison..
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:05 pmI think nk’s deadline was today.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:06 pmSo What! We already know trump wanted to investigate the bidens for corruption. 50 votes+ against impeachment in senate. G.o.p. is now populist party of trump. You free trade conservative libertarians neo-con never trumpets have been run out of power in the republican party. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
asset (5effa0) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:35 pm@10. Well, Gumbo still wants a future in the GOP. As of now, in a Trump GOP, he’s dead meat.
As ex-president of Fox’s RedEye he’s screwed on that- it was cancelled. He can quill a book- he’s done a few already- but news moves fast and hi stor wll grow stale; as w/Comey. He’ll end up fading into history w/Rummy, Cheney, Wolfy and the rest of the neocons. He doesn’t want that. He wants to remain relevant.
McConnell just poo-pooed this news on the Senate floor anyway indicating he’s not going to jerked round day-to-day by such reports. He’s not going to let ‘outsiders’ dictate how ‘his’ Senate structures a Senate impeachment trial. Nancy balked: she who hesitates has lost.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:38 pmBreaking- NBC News just reported, per the Iraqi request, the SoD indicates U.S. troops will leave Iraq. See, Trump will tell you this was his 4-D multi-level chess plan all along– to get the U.S. out of endless middle east conflicts. Meanwhile, the 82nd Airborne is… airborne, headed to– Iraq. Such chaos.
…and Putin smiled.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:44 pmYou can’t make this stuff up: W/respect to troops in Iraq, The government of the United States of America literally doesn’t know whether its staying or going. Chaos!
… and Putin smiled.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 1:15 pm“ Hmm…impeachment is back on the front page.
Time for another airstrike?”
Dave (1bb933) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:12 am
I’d say it’s time for a “hey look at me” landing on a CV with a Mission Accomplished banner.
Munroe (329078) — 1/6/2020 @ 1:36 pmOne Republican has come out and said they would like to hear from John Bolton: Mitt Romney.
Dana (643cd6) — 1/6/2020 @ 2:05 pmI have reluctantly concluded that I too will testify if subpoenaed.
V. Francis Cox (43656d) — 1/6/2020 @ 2:07 pmSen. John Cornyn too.
Dana (643cd6) — 1/6/2020 @ 2:08 pmGood, Dana…I hope Corny pulls his fellow Texas Senator by the ear and sets him straight.
urbanleftbehind (70c514) — 1/6/2020 @ 2:12 pm8. There are two branches of government pitted against the executive, and the Chief Presiding Officer is also the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What higher judicial authority is there?
“Two branches pitted against the executive” Hum, what? There are 3 branches, the executive is one, Congress is 2, and only 1/4 of them have voted, and Judiciary is 3. What two branches are Pitted against the Executive? The Chief Justice presides over the proceedings because the VP cant, and the other Senators are Jurors. The CJ will make no legal rulings during the impeachment proceedings. Only carry out the rules as handed to him by the Majority Leader of the Senate.
So to recap. Only about 1/4 of Congress is against the Executive.
The Chief Justice is not representing the Judicial Branch as part of the Impeachment Trial. Only presiding, using Senate Rules.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 1/6/2020 @ 2:31 pmBeware the Bolton brier patch!
Richard K Mahler (fd2ee5) — 1/6/2020 @ 3:11 pmBut both the President and the House of Representatives opposed his effort on jurisdictional grounds, and each other on the merits. The House committee went so far as to withdraw its subpoena to Dr. Kupperman in a deliberate attempt to moot the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction.
And in doing so, the House has driven a stake through it’s second article of impeachment, which accuses Trump of doing something that it could have litigated but refused to.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/6/2020 @ 3:19 pmAs for Bolton, one should not assume his testimony will damage Trump. It may, but Bolton is Bolton and the chips will fall as they may.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/6/2020 @ 3:20 pmHowever, Pelosi’s attempt to interfere in the Senate trial is patently unconstitutional and in years prior would have resulted in a unanimous censure by the Senate. But things fall apart.
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/6/2020 @ 3:22 pmMcConnell’s answer to Pelosi should be “None of your G-d damn business.”
Kevin M (19357e) — 1/6/2020 @ 3:23 pmI won’t go looking for your post condemning the Senate resolution (criticizing Pelosi and the House Dems conduct of the impeachment hearings) as patently unconstitutional and calling for unanimous censure of the senators who sponsored it, because I’m sure it’s there!
Dave (65a95a) — 1/6/2020 @ 3:45 pmNk,
I believe you said you’d turn against this sham if Pelosi didn’t submit the articles 2 weeks ago. Still feel that way?
NJRob (2fe7a0) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:01 pm
Then whembly reminded me that they were already on recess.
I think nk’s deadline was today.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 1/6/2020 @ 12:06 pm
Close enough. It’s a #FakeImpeachment, less meaningful than
nk (dbc370) — 1/6/2020 @ 4:07 pmcensureAdam Schiff mincing down the corridor of the Capitol, elbows akimbo, preceded by TV cameras and microphones.Trump sends B-52s to Mideast. Has anybody told him they’re strategic bombers and not a band?
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 4:19 pm@20. See #33. They’re on the way.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 4:21 pmAnd I will so testify if subpoenaed.
nk (dbc370) — 1/6/2020 @ 4:23 pmJust so I’m clear, are you suggesting that in the sort of circumspect, principled and self-sacrificing decision for which he’s famous, Donald Trump nobly gagged a witness whose testimony would have exonerated him, to preserve the prerogatives of his successors?
That’s …
*chokes up*
… that’s beautiful man.
Dave (1bb933) — 1/6/2020 @ 4:31 pm@35.Yes. We should all call Mitch’s office and leave a message on his answering machine that if subpoenaed, we’ll all testify. When getting in their faces, we can all bring pie.
Lots and lots of cream pies.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 4:34 pmI prefer a pie eating contest…it could either go like Revenge of the Nerds or like Stand By Me.
urbanleftbehind (70c514) — 1/6/2020 @ 4:58 pmI’ll tell you, my friends, the last couple of weeks or so, since the vote on the #FakeImpeachment, have been a contest on who sucks more, Trump or the Democrats, and it’s definitely the Democrats. Hands down, mouth, lips and tongue only, they’ve stripped the chrome off of every trailer hitch in DC.
nk (dbc370) — 1/6/2020 @ 5:18 pm@38. Was thinking more along the lines of The Great Race— or better still, Blazing Saddles.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 5:25 pmWe need to get rid of this sham-impeachment now. What a waste of everyone’s time! Of course slow-motion Turtle McConnell only acts fast when there’s some big donor $$$ at stake. So, I assume they’ll drag out this farce for another two months. I Lisa Murky and Collins, the RINO Sisters, are already babbling about “we need this” and “We need that” to “judge properly”. Even Mittens is getting into the act.
rcocean (1a839e) — 1/6/2020 @ 6:11 pmWhat Mitch McConnell states he wants are the rules of 1999, which were, (I don’t quite remember it this way but perhaps I wasn’t paying close enough attention) each side gets to make a presentation, Senators then get to ask questions and on;y then do they vote on whether or not they want to hear from any witnesses.
In 1999, they decided to limit each side to three witnesses or maybe it was three all told, who testified behind closed doors on videotape. Senators could view the testimony if the chose. Then they had closing arguments during which excerpts of the testimony could be played.
I thought all this – the three witnesses on videotape and live closing arguments only during which excerpts of testimony could be played – was decided before they started the trial. I thought the only thing bad about it was the limitation on the number of witnesses. Having them testify off the floor was perfectly OK.
In this case, many witnesses have already been deposed and.some testified before cameras, so they might only be needed for a limited number of additional questions.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/6/2020 @ 6:50 pm”One Republican has come out and said they would like to hear from John Bolton: Mitt Romney.”
Dana (643cd6) — 1/6/2020 @ 2:05 pm
Mitt and the 47%: A love story.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/6/2020 @ 7:43 pmUPDATE BY PATTERICO: I can’t imagine this leads to removal of Trump, but it still could be a significant game-changer in how Republicans’ vote to acquit is perceived. Mitt Romney has said he’d like to hear from Bolton, and he may not be alone. If 51 Senators vote to hear Bolton testify, he will. And John Roberts would be ruling in the first instance on any invocations of privilege during the testimony — or attempts by Trumpist Senators to object on privilege grounds. And if Trump ran off to federal district court to block Bolton from testifying? First: bad look. Second: I can well imagine a federal district judge saying: “You have the Chief Justice of the United States making rulings on evidence. What do you need me for? Get out of my court!”
To paraphrase Joe Biden’s statement about ObamaCare: this could be a big freaking deal.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/6/2020 @ 9:00 pmJohn Roberts and ObamaCare: A love story.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/6/2020 @ 9:16 pm@44. 1. ‘Bad look’ has never really bothered our Captain, P.
2. Courts eat time; ‘urgency’ was Adam and Nancy’s complaint– and rationale– for pushing ahead until her Big Balk. This has always been about about damaging him; not removing him.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 10:51 pmA few more days of Mideast threat jousting seasoned w/a NorKo rocket test and a pinch of Australian global warming fires ought to get the woes of ‘impeachment’ back to page 3 or 4 in the papers and the B, C or D blocks of the cablers. Then comes the NFL playoffs, the Super Bowl, Iowa spring— and baseball. For most busy Americans, ‘impeachment’ will look like some stale Thanksgiving leftovers found in the back of the fridge.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/6/2020 @ 11:05 pmOnly one moron could have given us Roberts and obamacare.
mg (8cbc69) — 1/7/2020 @ 1:23 amOf course it was a booooosh.
Since no hearings, testimony, debate, votes etc are currently taking place, or even planned, how is it “a waste of everyone’s time?”
Dave (1bb933) — 1/7/2020 @ 1:46 amrcocean,
I bet they keep some form of impeachment investigation going all the way to November. I bet it seems to heat up in October with some nasty surprise about Trump. If it makes you feel better, I imagine Trump will be reelected due to a spoiler candidate.
Both sides stand to raise a ton of money on this. They might say they want a result, but they really want the money.
Dustin (cafb36) — 1/7/2020 @ 3:02 amsome ayatollah/justice roberts/2020
mg (8cbc69) — 1/7/2020 @ 3:38 am50. I bet they keep some form of impeachment investigation going all the way to November.
Democrats have re-defined what “impeachment” looks like. The old style, was actions so egregious, more then 2/3 of the nation felt abused, and need relief only impeachment could remedy. The House would vote to start the process. That’s old school.
Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler have re-worked all of that. Now, any committee chairman in the House, just declares impeachment is underway.
So now, congressional oversight is exactly the same as impeachment. Schiff wants to investigate the Presidents call to take out an identified terrorist, on the field of battle. Ignoring, Schiff is chair of the intelligence committee, not Foriegn Affairs, or Defense. The latter have actual oversight powers.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 1/7/2020 @ 4:57 amSchiff,etal, will not be happy when Republicans use the same tactics in the future. Just declare IMPEACHMENT! Start calling witnesses, ie, the Presidents closest advisers, and let the good times role. (sort out the charges of misconduct later)
iowan2 (9c8856) — 1/7/2020 @ 5:01 amUsing the power of the office to force a foreign power to announce the investigation of a political rival is pretty egregious.
I can’t think of another instance were a president has done that.
Instances where similar actions were done at lower levels have resulted in charges.
Time123 (c9382b) — 1/7/2020 @ 6:02 amAnd that’s the way it is on the 20th day of the #FakeImpeachment without the Articles being sent to the Senate for trial.
nk (dbc370) — 1/7/2020 @ 7:27 amYup. Plus we have gotten to a point where 2/3 of the country can’t agree on anything.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/7/2020 @ 7:27 am“I can’t think of another instance were a president has done that.
Instances where similar actions were done at lower levels have resulted in charges.”
Time123 (c9382b) — 1/7/2020 @ 6:02 am
Those at “lower levels” aren’t up for re-election and don’t have Article II powers. Kinda significant.
And, I can’t think of another instance where the entrenched in the executive branch embrace “Viva Le Resistance” against a duly elected president. But I’m sure you can.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/7/2020 @ 7:55 am54. Time123 (c9382b) — 1/7/2020 @ 6:02 am
Trump didn’t do that. Gordon Sondland did that. He did it in spite of the fact that Trump told him he wasn’t interested in that deal. Unfortunately he disconnected the call before Sondland could pin him down more on just what
But Gordon Sondland hoped that this (which Giuliani was pushing) would have the effect of getting Trump to release the hold. This was not Trump trying to force an announcement of an investigation.
This was his appointees trying to figure out what would cause him to release the hold on Ukrainian military assistance, and guessing.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html
And it wasn’t only Burisma. And neither was it “an investigation of Biden” in general. I think they were still disagreeing on what Zelensky would say on Sept 13 on CNN when the whole thing ended.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 7:55 amThis is not coming from Trump:
The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance.
I never said I was “right”.
Lets hope it works.
The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 7:55 amCan’t wait for Walrus to go all Blasey Ford on Trump.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 1/7/2020 @ 8:04 amThis PDF file can’t be cut and pasted:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6552470/Johnson-to-Jordan-Nunes.pdf
But I found another website with the text online:
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/11/johnson-responds-to-house-republicans-request-for-information-on-ukraine
There are some interesting things in this letter, like Senator Johnson not seeming to think there was any problem if the appropriation running out. And also being surprised on May 23 when he finds out Trump is hostile toward Ukraine. (he seems to have turned against Ukraine sometime after April 21 and before May 13. This is something worth investigating.
But here is Senator Johnson about the quid pro quo:
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 8:06 amI think Bolton wants to testify because everybody seems to have the wrong picture.
The picture is of incompetence; people trying to, in the words of anonymous “working diligently from within to frustrate…his worst inclinations; as well as Russian propaganda making its way and being accepted by President Trump, although I don;t know if Bolton can testify to the latter.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 8:11 amiowan2 (9c8856) — 1/7/2020 @ 4:57 am
That sentence I agree with – at least that they’re heading that way. he reason is, it could strengthen the House’s subpoena power. So they’ll use that argument in any court case.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 8:15 amWe shouldn’t even have a President. We should adopt the Swiss system. Congress appoints the Cabinet heads and they pick one of themselves just to gavel them to order (rotating every year or whatever) and each Cabinet head is the “president” of his department.
nk (dbc370) — 1/7/2020 @ 8:49 amI want to encourage you to keep putting this out there. Also, don’t forget the “it’s imperative we act immediately” talking point and make generous use of terms like obviously, dictator, and unconstitutional. Also, work on clever ways to explain how House D’s should be able to control the Senate process. And Russia, that’s fallen off the radar so maybe try something like “it’s obvious Putin is controlling the Senate process and House D’s have to fight that”.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/7/2020 @ 9:17 am#36
Trump fired Bolton, so now everyone thinks Bolton:
1. Has the goods on Trump
2. Is going to throw Trump under the bus.
But we don’t know what Bolton knows, what he wants to say or will be forced to reveal.
Dave, Patrick and the others will probably take pieces of Boltons testimony and say “aha” and I’ll probably find something that counters their view, like… Trump is concerned they are pissing away the money… because that sounds like Trump to me.
I’m open to the possibility was Trump trying to get a two for one on Ukraine anti pissing away $$$ AND hurt Biden at the same time.
Sammy posted the transcript of the texts earlier and you can see that the parties overseeing the administration of the Ukraine funding had conflicting opinions about what was going on.
I expect that to continue
steveg (354706) — 1/7/2020 @ 9:22 am@steveg
They weren’t the parties overseeing the administration of the Ukraine funding. They were the people conducting diplomacy with Ukraine:
1. Acting Ambassador Bill Taylor, (a former ambassador during the Bush administration selected by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as – he did not attempt to get Trump to nominate him or approve him. He was still on the job till Jan 2 – he left a few days early before the maximum length that his temporary appointment as chargé d’affaires could reach was reached, so that Mike Pompeo could avoid being photographed with him, except that Mike Pompeo cancelled his trip to Ukraine because of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and subsequent developments
2. Special envoy for ending the Ukraine-Russia war, Kurt Volker (he resigned when the scandal broke and provided the text messages to Congress)
3. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who somehow got involved in this for unclear reasons.
Rudy Giuliani was also meeting separately with various Ukrainian officials from time to time, and Sondland understood that Giuliani had Trump’s support. I don’t believe he ever heard anything from Giuliani about the aid money Giuliani says he had no idea about anything having to do with the aid money. He wants to testify too.
Sondland says that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was kept informed of everything he was doing. Democrats want Pompeo to testify.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 9:40 amI think
means even the House D’s know this is #FakeImpeachment.
The war powers resolution is also for show and I’m surprised Nancy is playing with that since it’s so obvious. It makes it look like House D’s are running to the defense of Iran. If you game this out a few steps, e.g. Iran responds by escalating, would this new war powers resolution mean the US would only respond for 30 days? At that point House D’s would demand that the US stop all actions against Iran w/o any sort of evidence Iran would de-escalate? That’s a very french strategy Nancy is putting out there.
frosty (f27e97) — 1/7/2020 @ 9:45 amSince it’s based on sworn testimony and backed up by documentary evidence i will.
Time123 (52fb0e) — 1/7/2020 @ 10:20 amThankfully, that horsesh!t war powers resolution is not going to go anywhere. And it doesn’t only look like — the Democrats and the media are running to the defense of Iran. And I think it’s a combination of both wanting to stymie Trump and to protect Obama’s “legacy”. Not that I’m a #FanOfTrump, but “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” applies to everybody. America comes first no matter who’s in the White House.
nk (dbc370) — 1/7/2020 @ 10:22 am67. * selected by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as chargé d’affaires.
You could also call him Acting Ambassador, or even Ambassador, because he used to be, and he also was called the top American diplomat in Ukraine or words to that effect.
Pompeo did not have the authority to appoint an Acting Ambassador, so Bll Taylor was chargé d’affaires in Ukraine, and he didn’t want to involve Trump in that after he’d pulled out Ambassador Marie Yovanovich before Trump could maybe start some proceedings against her.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/7/2020 @ 10:33 am#67
Thanks for setting me straight
steveg (354706) — 1/7/2020 @ 1:27 pm#39
nk
I think if the Democrats would have not played:
Hide their witness
Hearsay witness after hearsay witness about another hearsay witness
Parody the phone call
Lt. Col. Putz
Bury the exculpatory witnesses behind closed doors
Behind closed doors. (Period) Roast the SOB in public with all the chips on the table
Start with Russia and end with a Ukraine fizzle
They had a chance. But they ran it like they had no evidence. If they’d didn’t need smoke and mirrors, why use them?
steveg (354706) — 1/7/2020 @ 1:51 pmIf I’m a juror sitting there being paid some penurious per diem and the prosector leads with three hearsay “witnesses” my attitude is going to shift to GTFO real fast. Why start off by digging a big hole of incredibility?
No, any perceived conflict is Sondland repeating Trump’s alibi after he was caught. By September 19, the date Sondland repeated Trump’s claim that there was no quid pro quo, the existence of the complaint had already been reported in the Washington Post.
Patterico (115b1f) — 1/8/2020 @ 7:15 amPatterico (115b1f) — 1/8/2020 @ 7:15 am
It wasn’t only Sondland who said Trump said there was no quid pro quo. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis>) did too:
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/11/johnson-responds-to-house-republicans-request-for-information-on-ukraine
The Wall Street Journal article a month earlier:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-used-potential-meeting-to-pressure-ukraine-on-biden-texts-indicate-11570205661
It was Sondland who fr=irst described the quid pro quo and he first said Trump had rejected the idea not on September 19, but he said it on September 9 in a text while he was still actively working to try to get Ukrainian president Zelensky to announce investigations!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/ukraine-text-messages-volker.html
Trump did not withhold the aid to pressure to tr to force investigations because it wasn’t very difficult to get Ukraine to agree to do i, and Ukraine had already agreed to it by the time of the July 25 call (wellm had agreed ti investigate Burisma)
The reason they didn’t do it s because they got counseled that they needed bipartisan support by Ambassador Taylor and others maybe.
On September 5, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) almost specifically warned Zelensky against investigating Biden.
From Senator Ron Johnson’s letter:
And that’s why Ukraine is not investigating Burisma until today.
Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3) — 1/9/2020 @ 8:30 pmThe trial will probably begin on Wednesday.
The next Democratic debate is Tuesday night, and one candidate who is not taking part in the debate will be on Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” that night. It will be broadcast live (not live on tape as usual) after 11:30 EST at night. Who? Michael Bloomberg.
Ineresting aside. I read in a book about vice presidents that Micahel Bloomberg was one of 23 people consdered by Obama for Vice president, but he was the on;y one they didn’t compile a book about him because they said it was too and (and they didn’t want Obama to see?) Lawsuits before he became mayor apparently. He was also considered by McCain that year but they didn’t seem to find him so problematic.
As is known, John McCain wanted to name, as his vice president, Joe Lieberman, who had been on the Democratic ticket as V.P. eight years before, in the year 2000 but was told the convention might not approve. And that he just can’t do it.
Joe Biden said recently, in answer to a question, that he was open to naming a Republican, and there are several prominent ones possible, but they have got to step up (and criticize Trump)
Bernie Sanders was on last night, (and got asked basically friendly political questions) and the day before Larry David, who plays Bernie Sanders on Saturday Night Live.
Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3) — 1/10/2020 @ 7:06 amThe book is “First in Line: Pressidents, Vice Presidents and the Pursuit of Power” by Kate anderson Brower (Harper Collins 2018)
On pae 50 it says that hhe person who prepared the black book on the candidates said decided not to bring the 23rd book because it’s got so much dirt on it. The lawyers were afraid it would leak. In a room full of campaign staffers the person involved with the vetting didn’t even want to mention his name and he only told him his name when Obama agreed to walk out into the hallway where they could speak alone. What were they afraid of? Getting sued?
Sammy Finkelman (2cb3c3) — 1/10/2020 @ 7:17 am