The Trump Impeachment Thread

[El Guapo]

At this point I'm convinced that Bolton's motivations in this are 60% book sales, 30% desire to spite Trump, and 10% desire to do what's best for the country (in his eyes). He obviously doesn't care *that* much about doing the right thing and sharing what he knows of the truth, because otherwise he would've spoken (publicly or privately) with the House impeachment investigators. But at the same time he tends to pop up at inconvenient times for Trump - this marginally increases the chances of witnesses (McConnell will still bury them in all likelihood, but this will marginally increase the political cost for vulnerable Republican senators).

It's also a funny revelation because the link between the aid money and the investigation request has been proven 10 times over, including by Trump's own admission. But at the same time people pretty promptly forget that kind of stuff (I think it gets lost in generalized Trump corruption and misdeeds) so it's helpful to have that re-proven periodically.

[Blackhawk]

Additionally, the WH was provided the manuscript months ago to vette it. So they knew that this story was coming for some time.

Maybe. Everything I've read says that it was a draft of the book, so it may have been content cut before they vetted it, or may include content they demanded be cut.

[Skinypupy]

While it absolutely should, I doubt this actually will move the needle at all.

Bolton's lawyer already send out a CYA, something along the lines of "this was a draft that no one but the publisher was supposed to see, therefore FAKE NEWS". If he's not under oath, it would be pretty easy for Bolton to say that he was exaggerating for dramatic effect or that he misremembered the situation, and the entire discussion gets dropped down the memory hole.

Either that, or Trump will start positioning Bolton as a covefe-boy that he barely knew or a liberal Deep Stater (which would be hilarious), and the Redhat army will simply dismiss it entirely. No one in the Senate actually has the balls to do anything, and there's no way Moscow Mitch would let him testify.

[El Guapo]

While it absolutely should, I doubt this actually will move the needle at all.

Bolton's lawyer already send out a CYA, something along the lines of "this was a draft that no one but the publisher was supposed to see, therefore FAKE NEWS". If he's not under oath, it would be pretty easy for Bolton to say that he was exaggerating for dramatic effect or that he misremembered the situation, and the entire discussion gets dropped down the memory hole.

Either that, or Trump will start positioning Bolton as a covefe-boy that he barely knew or a liberal Deep Stater (which would be hilarious), and the Redhat army will simply dismiss it entirely. No one in the Senate actually has the balls to do anything, and there's no way Moscow Mitch would let him testify.

I think Bolton just wanted to have this story out there to mute the eventual criticism that he withheld information relevant to impeachment in order to boost his book sales. Which I am actually now pretty convinced is what he is doing - it's just that he wants it not to be too obvious.

[Skinypupy]

And thus, the bus-throwing begins.

I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the...

...transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed, in addition to the fact that President Zelensky & the Foreign Minister of Ukraine said there was no pressure and no problems. Additionally, I met with President Zelensky at the United Nations...

...(Democrats said I never met) and released the military aid to Ukraine without any conditions or investigations - and far ahead of schedule. I also allowed Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank missiles. My Administration has done far more than the previous Administration.

[Smoove_B]

If only there was some other venue where he could plead his case that would be more dignified than Twitter. I don't know, maybe a room with a bunch of elected officials in it, all discussing important things. It'll come to me.

Also, I'm pretty sure Bolton released the drafts yesterday because he was getting hints that the administration was somehow going to block publication. I have no doubts his motivation for release is the money associated with book sales.I don't think he cares one bit about Trump, democracy or his legacy. He has his meal ticks, so screw you all, I'm cashing in.

[Holman]

Either that, or Trump will start positioning Bolton as a covefe-boy that he barely knew or a liberal Deep Stater (which would be hilarious), and the Redhat army will simply dismiss it entirely. No one in the Senate actually has the balls to do anything, and there's no way Moscow Mitch would let him testify.

There's at least some possibility that Mitch might get steamrollered. Bolton has blindsided them.

The table does seem to be shifting this morning:

[Holman]

And thus, the bus-throwing begins.

Don't public pronouncements waive executive privilege?

[LawBeefaroni]

"No pressure and no problems."


Well, that's all sorted then.

[malchior]

If only there was some other venue where he could plead his case that would be more dignified than Twitter. I don't know, maybe a room with a bunch of elected officials in it, all discussing important things. It'll come to me.

Also, I'm pretty sure Bolton released the drafts yesterday because he was getting hints that the administration was somehow going to block publication. I have no doubts his motivation for release is the money associated with book sales.I don't think he cares one bit about Trump, democracy or his legacy. He has his meal ticks, so screw you all, I'm cashing in.

There is also just the opportunism. It is the right time to pump it for the sweet pre-sale cash. It's freaking depressing how every actor in this affair aside from the career bureaucrats who testified at great risk are all sordid, garbage people. It really is a shit show.

[Daehawk]

I wish Trump and the boys would all go to prison. Do not pass go do not collect your hookers and blow.

And why is nothing done about Trumps taxes? You know he is a dodger and a liar on them and refuses to disclose them. Anyone else would be serving time by now.

[Blackhawk]

With that being said, the...

...transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed

Ok. Can we get those, then?

[malchior]

How are we supposed to help you with the cover up if we don't know what to cover up?

[Skinypupy]

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the process, but is there something in place that would be preventing the GOP from doing that?

I always got the impression that if they do decide to allow witnesses, they would be called from both sides.

[malchior]

This is a thinly veiled reference to Hunter Biden and more ominously the "whistle blower". I see this as some confirmation that this is being seriously considered now. They are possibly setting the ground to go further into conspiracy land. Another (stronger) possibility is that it is a way to avoid calling witnesses when inevitably red lines are drawn around the whistle blower. It is increasingly clear that McConnell wants this to be over and witnesses delay that massively and expose them to what he almost certainly sees as too much risk.

[Zaxxon]

Hold the phones, Susan Collins is concerned again.

[Skinypupy]

This is a thinly veiled reference to Hunter Biden and more ominously the "whistle blower". I see this as some confirmation that this is being seriously considered now. They are possibly setting the ground to go further into conspiracy land. Another (stronger) possibility is that it is a way to avoid calling witnesses when inevitably red lines are drawn around the whistle blower. It is increasingly clear that McConnell wants this to be over and witnesses delay that massively and expose them to what he almost certainly sees as too much risk.

Ah, that makes sense...from a "now I understand their intent" perspective, not from a "this is a reasonable response" one.

This whole thing seems to have put Bolton in quite the pickle. Either he speaks out against Dear Leader and risks losing out on all the book sales from the die-hard Red Hat crowd (which I can only assume would be the sole target market for his book), or he admits that his book is full of shit.

What's a grifter to do?

[El Guapo]

I wonder if Susan Collins is concerned (actually concerns, not her usual faux concerned) about SNL basically making her the face of craven Republican senators in the cold open sketch for this past episode.

[Daehawk]

The only reason not to see / hear evidence is to not see / hear evidence. Simple. Hiding stuff.

[Kurth]

At this point, why are we drawing a red line around calling the whistle blower? I mean, I understand it in principle, but in this specific case, what is the concern? That this individual would lose a plum job in the Trump administration? That his or her safety would be put at risk? Of those two, I suppose the latter is more persuasive to me, but, then again, there are plenty of people who have spoken out against Trump and, as far as I know, haven't been disappeared yet. Also, can't the Senate find a way to have the whistleblower testify and also protect his or her identity? I'm no criminal law expert, but I was under the impression that that happens all the time in criminal cases with confidential informants. And I do know the same kind of thing happens in civil cases regarding highly confidential business information.

Again, I understand that as a matter of principle (and law), a whistle blower should not be compelled to testify. But if that's just being used as a threat to avoid calling witnesses that would shine some more light on the subject of this impeachment inquiry, it would seem like maybe a smart strategy would be to call that bluff.

Then again, maybe it's more important to stand on principle since none of this matters anyway.

[Holman]

Additionally, the WH was provided the manuscript months ago to vette it. So they knew that this story was coming for some time.

Maybe. Everything I've read says that it was a draft of the book, so it may have been content cut before they vetted it, or may include content they demanded be cut.

They got the book on Dec 30, so it hasn’t been that long.

I don’t think the WH can demand cuts unless something is very clearly covered by a security clearance, something Bolton’s lawyers say is not an issue.

Of course Trump says he hasn’t read the book, which is possible because he’s never read anything.

[Alefroth]

With that being said, the...

...transcripts of my calls with President Zelensky are all the proof that is needed

Ok. Can we get those, then?

“But honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material."

[Blackhawk]

At this point, why are we drawing a red line around calling the whistle blower? I mean, I understand it in principle, but in this specific case, what is the concern? That this individual would lose a plum job in the Trump administration? That his or her safety would be put at risk?

As it is, calling out a crime guarantees anonymity, and that's pretty vital to the process. To me, the risk would be that if a whistle blower can be forced to go public, it would make those who see problems in the future far less likely to put themselves at risk.

[malchior]

At this point, why are we drawing a red line around calling the whistle blower? I mean, I understand it in principle, but in this specific case, what is the concern? That this individual would lose a plum job in the Trump administration? That his or her safety would be put at risk?

As it is, calling out a crime guarantees anonymity, and that's pretty vital to the process. To me, the risk would be that if a whistle blower can be forced to go public, it would make those who see problems in the future far less likely to put themselves at risk.

This. The whistle blower is honestly the one who is in the position to disclose whether they should give up that anonymity. The law is designed with that implicitly and that is why the IG investigates the complaint and deems it credible or not. This is not someone randomly releasing information to a media outlet.

It is a careful layered process to allow the reporting of wrong doing by the people closest to the action. Anything that undermines the ability of the system to have this 'relief valve' puts people in impossible positions. A sensible approach IMO is to put yourself in their shoes. They have the obvious job and safety risks amongst a lot of other things. All because they were put in the position of seeing something that looked or sounded illegal or wrong. That alone made this a hard and risky decision even with the current system. And why should we risk this system? The response to which has probably already discouraged other people from coming forward? Some sense that we need to kowtow to the forces tearing down the system? That doesn't make sense to me.

Edit: I also feel like it makes sense to respond to the other portions above. The point of the hand off to the IG is to keep the input clean. Meaning the complaint is an input to a process. If the complaint doesn't pan out then it can end there. If it was malicious I expect that can be investigated. However, once the complaint has been verified as urgent and credible why does the complainant matter anymore? The input has been verified. You can investigate the matter without their involvement now. That is the point. It is an input into a 'black box' investigative process that produces an outcome - a report to Congress. It worked as designed and we want to go attack the now irrelevant input? There had better be a damn compelling reason other than derp demands it.

[Paingod]

Hold the phones, Susan Collins is concerned again.

She'll still be concerned when I see her voted out of office in my home state. I'm sick to death of her uselessness and I expect a lot of other people up here are too - we're generally laid back and easy going, but hold a grudge like no one's business. She gets re-elected because no one remembers anything she does and "Heck, she's been there before, she can do it again" ... but she's done too much in the last 4 years that people are remembering.

[Skinypupy]

Either that, or Trump will start positioning Bolton as a covefe-boy that he barely knew...

Called it.

Trump: "Nothing was ever said to John Bolton." lol

[Holman]

How is Ken Starr so dead boring when the ridiculousness of him lecturing us on the overreach of impeachment ought to be bringing the house down?

[stimpy]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

[stessier]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

Please elaborate with your top 2 or 3 for each side.

[LawBeefaroni]

At this point, why are we drawing a red line around calling the whistle blower? I mean, I understand it in principle, but in this specific case, what is the concern? That this individual would lose a plum job in the Trump administration? That his or her safety would be put at risk? Of those two, I suppose the latter is more persuasive to me, but, then again, there are plenty of people who have spoken out against Trump and, as far as I know, haven't been disappeared yet.

It's not that he would go extra--legal on the whistle blower. It's that he would likely go all legal on them with the DOJ and whatever other method available for spurious retaliation.

[Holman]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

Please elaborate with your top 2 or 3 for each side.

+1

[Alefroth]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

All sides matter.

[Jaymann]

Black (of heart) lies matter.

[ImLawBoy]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

Please elaborate with your top 2 or 3 for each side.

+1

Well, one of the Democrats quoted Biggie, so, you know . . . .

Untold ridiculousness.

[stimpy]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

Please elaborate with your top 2 or 3 for each side.

The Dems rushed the impeachment process, but the Repubs don't dare rush the trial. Dems impeached without key witnesses and documents, but if Repubs hold a trial without key witnesses and documents, they are engaged in malfeasance.

The Repubs have Trump......how much time you have?

[Holman]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

Please elaborate with your top 2 or 3 for each side.

The Dems rushed the impeachment process, but the Repubs don't dare rush the trial. Dems impeached without key witnesses and documents, but if Repubs hold a trial without key witnesses and documents, they are engaged in malfeasance.

Dems asked for key witnesses and documents and everything else, and the WH didn't comply. Did you miss the part where the WH refused *all* subpoenas? They did that.

The only option was to litigate it, which would have taken us past the 2020 election, which was the point of the refusal.

[stimpy]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

Please elaborate with your top 2 or 3 for each side.

The Dems rushed the impeachment process, but the Repubs don't dare rush the trial. Dems impeached without key witnesses and documents, but if Repubs hold a trial without key witnesses and documents, they are engaged in malfeasance.

Dems asked for key witnesses and documents and everything else, and the WH didn't comply. Did you miss the part where the WH refused *all* subpoenas? They did that.

The only option was to litigate it, which would have taken us past the 2020 election, which was the point of the refusal.

So because there was an election coming up the Dems were not obligated to follow thru with due diligence? Hmmmm…..sounds like they may have had an agenda....

[LawBeefaroni]

There has been untold amounts of ridiculousness on both sides of this circus.

Please elaborate with your top 2 or 3 for each side.

The Dems rushed the impeachment process, but the Repubs don't dare rush the trial. Dems impeached without key witnesses and documents, but if Repubs hold a trial without key witnesses and documents, they are engaged in malfeasance.

Dems asked for key witnesses and documents and everything else, and the WH didn't comply. Did you miss the part where the WH refused *all* subpoenas? They did that.

The only option was to litigate it, which would have taken us past the 2020 election, which was the point of the refusal.

So because there was an election coming up the Dems were not obligated to follow thru with due diligence? Hmmmm…..sounds like they may have had an agenda....

Did you miss the part where the WH refused *all* subpoenas? They did that.

Still missing it apparently.

[YellowKing]

If Trump was innocent, and the Democrats were engaged in a partisan campaign to speedily remove him from office, then common sense would dictate that the White House should simply release all transcripts proving Trump's innocence. They should have complied with every request for witnesses, as those witnesses should be able to corroborate Trump's version of events.

Ask yourself - why would someone who is completely innocent of all charges refuse to produce anything that would exonerate him from said charges?

[Scoop20906]

Yes the Democrats decided not to follow the rulez that would allow a cheater and unindicted conspirator skate by yet again. That’s a precedent I’m willing to set. Only cowards and slime balls will find a problem with that. You can’t face the music if you break the jukebox.