Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[Stacyhs]

OK, so John Bolton testifies that Trump ordered the Ukraine aid be withheld unless Ukraine agrees to investigate the "missing server" and Hunter Biden. And he testifies that Trump has Yovanovitch removed cause she would stand in the way of Trump's scheme.

What does this change? Would we get 66 votes to remove?

Would Trump resign?

Doubtful. Maybe this would bring us to 52, maybe 53 votes to remove from office.

Who knows? The chief complaint of the GOP is that this was all second hand knowledge...no one has given first hand knowledge. But Bolton was there. He heard it all. He could destroy that excuse by the Trump defense. Would it make honest dealers of enough GOP senators? No one can predict that in the Age of Trump and McConnell. But if even a handful of GOP senators voted to convict, that would be a victory in itself.

 

[Minoosh]

But if even a handful of GOP senators voted to convict, that would be a victory in itself.

Yeah it would. But I don't think even that much will happen. Nothing that Bolton leaks is going to matter in the Senate. Although the steady drip-drip-drip of bad news for the administration may well take a toll.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah it would. But I don't think even that much will happen. Nothing that Bolton leaks is going to matter in the Senate. Although the steady drip-drip-drip of bad news for the administration may well take a toll.

If that is true, then we are in an even worse situation than I thought. The GOP Senate will truly and irrevocably have become Trump Cult members.

 

[Cain]

If that is true, then we are in an even worse situation than I thought. The GOP Senate will truly and irrevocably have become Trump Cult members.

A cult would just agree with whatever Trump says. The Republican leadership is more cunning, conniving, and cynical.

 

[Aridas]

Who knows? The chief complaint of the GOP is that this was all second hand knowledge...no one has given first hand knowledge.

Which is an utterly inane argument to even try to make and they know it. It's not a serious argument. It's a flimsy cover.

Given the sheer number of inane defenses that have been forwarded by the GOP that have been utterly annihilated in short order, there's honestly not much reason to think that they won't do what they've done the last 10 times and move onto the next utterly inane defense, while openly lying like crazy.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the obstruction charge is by far the more serious charge. The idea that it is laughable should be distressing to anyone who cares about checks and balances.

Do we think POTUS should have unchecked power and be unaccountable? Should we say "Screw it" and given into authoritarian rule?

Because that really is what you are saying.

No, that's really not what I'm saying.

If they thought he was legally required to testify, and he refused, they should have gone to court to compel testimony. I'm confident courts would have "fast tracked" that case to get it heard quickly. Sure it would have delayed things an extra week or two, but that's not a big deal (as recent events showed). If he defied a court order, then that would be a good reason to impeach him.

 

[Meadmaker]

And here we go. Surprise, turns out they were all in the loop.Mother Jones: Report: John Bolton’s Book Draft Says Trump Conditioned Ukraine Aid on Biden Investigations

Boy, it sure is a good thing Bolton wrote that book, or we would never have known that.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, that's really not what I'm saying.

If they thought he was legally required to testify, and he refused, they should have gone to court to compel testimony. I'm confident courts would have "fast tracked" that case to get it heard quickly. Sure it would have delayed things an extra week or two, but that's not a big deal (as recent events showed). If he defied a court order, then that would be a good reason to impeach him.

He is defying a court order to produce the Kushner interview from the Mueller investigation - no appeal, no redaction, just refuses to release it.

 

[Meadmaker]

He is defying a court order to produce the Kushner interview from the Mueller investigation - no appeal, no redaction, just refuses to release it.

Was that part of the obstruction charge?

(That's a serious question. Defying an actual court order is a pretty big deal.)

ETA: I glanced at the real story. Your one sentence summary above is highly misleading.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1221619708648095745?s=20

Rewatching Trump team's arguments from Saturday is a trip.

Purpura: "Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else"
https://c-span.org/video/?468504-1/senate-impeachment-trial-day-6&start=1330

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Was that part of the obstruction charge?

(That's a serious question. Defying an actual court order is a pretty big deal.)

ETA: I glanced at the real story. Your one sentence summary above is highly misleading.

How so?
They let the deadline pass more than once, claiming they need to redact note or not.

And the House has asked for the Mueller material, but never got it. Now they have to use the material coming from FOIR suits.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/1221501676479242240?s=20

NEW: Rudy Giuliani tells me he wasn’t at April 2018 dinner and *didn’t even meet Parnas or Fruman until June 2018* contradicting @PressSec on @MediaBuzzFNC that men were at April 2018 dinner w/ @realDonaldTrump because of their relationship with Giuliani @CBSNews

Quote embedded in tweet.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/jbview/status/1221591218712387584?p=v

*If* the NYT story is true, it's almost a perfect comp for the smoking gun tape....except maybe a bit worse. (1/)

What's almost identical would be that the WH sent GOP Members of Congress out with talking points that the president *knew* were not only false, but that evidence existed to show the talking points were false.

What would be even a bit worse would be that in this case, the WH apparently knew that the evidence undermining the talking points was certain to become public, with only the exact timing in doubt.

In other words, they knowingly and deliberately screwed over congressional defenders *knowing it would be exposed*.

That - and not "proof" - is what finally did in Nixon in 1974. Maybe it won't this time, but it's an awfully big risk.

I guess I should add that Bolton's testimony (in book form or whatever) isn't as strong evidence as a tape recording, so there's more wiggle room for people to pretend. But not very much, if the story correctly characterizes what Bolton says.

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1221626794480164866?s=20

As I've said, it's not that interesting that Cipollone et al made claims they knew Bolton's book contradicted, bc they told so many knowing lies in other areas.

It raises process questions.

But it also raises the import of Dem letter noting Cipollone is a fact witness.

Before this started, Dems made sure to get on the record, "Hey, Pat, you're part of the cover-up."

If WHCO got the book and shared it with Trump for trial strategy, that raises the stakes of Cipollone's role.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The public that cares needs to put pressure on the GOP Senators.

So far I’ve emailed my two Georgia senators twice requesting they vote in favor of witnesses. May also call later today. For all the good it will do.

Then again, the closeness of the last Congressional election shows Georgia is not quite as red as it used to be. Same for Tennessee, where my wife and I will soon be residents.

 

[thaiboxerken]

OK, so John Bolton testifies that Trump ordered the Ukraine aid be withheld unless Ukraine agrees to investigate the "missing server" and Hunter Biden. And he testifies that Trump has Yovanovitch removed cause she would stand in the way of Trump's scheme.

What does this change? Would we get 66 votes to remove?

Would Trump resign?

Doubtful. Maybe this would bring us to 52, maybe 53 votes to remove from office.

Democrats know that the possibility of Trump removal is close to zero at this point no matter what evidence is revealed of Trump's guilt (which we all know is more than enough to remove reasonable doubt). At this point, piling on evidence is there to convince the public to vote the Republicans and Trump out for the corruption.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1221776116542689280?s=20

Republican sources tell Axios that party leaders and the White House will try to resist impeachment trial witnesses because, as one top aide put it, "there is a sense in the Senate that if one witness is allowed, the floodgates are open."

Article embedded in tweet.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221789190725283840?s=20

Per sources, some GOP senators privately pushing White House for information on who at administration had visibility into the manuscript over the last month. Senators feel blindsided.

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1221793821597585413?s=20

Understand why this is important: GOP Senators (and even House) have staked their careers on a defense story that the White House encouraged. Now they look like they were part of the cover up.

They were betting Trump had all this nailed down better.

 

[JPK]

Good morning. I'm still not sure I want Bolton to be called to testify. I suspect that whole game was to just use as a bargaining chip to get the Dems to agree to let the Biden's testify. Bolton will have nothing to say. I suspect he will do what all of the others did and claim that he can't talk about it because the President "may" want to invoke privilege at some point in time. Not that the President did invoke privilege but just that he might want to. Up until this point, thats all that needed to be done. No one, Dems or Republicans have forced the issue. Why not have the House subpoena the document? The Bolton draft that he sent to the White house? Documents don't lie. Bolton is a staunch Trump followed regardless of the very few disagreements he has had with the President. That's where I would start.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I would start with Pompeo, who is the obvious link between Trump and Ivanovich.

 

[JPK]

Also, Bolton's lawyers are saying that it was the White House that leaked this. They were the only ones who had this document. The White house released this information for a reason. Smells like it's just another attempt to have the Dems push to ask for Bolton to testify so they can ask for the Biden's and add more rings to the circus.

What really interests me is did the President's legal team know what was in this draft before they made their statements in court about there being no ties for aid into the investigations of his political rivals?
All this assuming that the NYT story is true and it doesn't seem to be refuted by Bolton's lawyers. Back to the what did they know and when did they know it? Were they blindsided by this like some of the GOP senators are claiming? Why any of them are surprised that all of this will eventually come out anyway I don't get. Is it just they think that if they can just get to a point where they acquit Trump and then they could say, "Well how could we know?" Or " This is just the Dems not giving up after they lost". Apparently, the White house has had this document for over a month.