╌>

'GAME OVER,' Trump declares, as old Bolton, Schiff videos surface amid Senate impeachment trial

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  just-jim-nc-ttth  •  4 years ago  •  134 comments

By:   Gregg Re

'GAME OVER,' Trump declares, as old Bolton, Schiff videos surface amid Senate impeachment trial
A string of newly resurfaced video clips of former national security adviser John Bolton spurred President Trump and his supporters Wednesday to highlight what they described as serious credibility questions -- raised by both Democrats and Republicans -- amid the Senate impeachment trial, as the president tweeted, "GAME OVER!"

Watch the clips. Especially Mr. Obama, the Senator, grill Bolton...............


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



In his tweet, Trump linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating "corruption" in Ukraine was a "high priority" for the Trump administration.
Bolton also called Trump's communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "warm and cordial," without mentioning any misconduct. It seemingly contradicted reported assertions in Bolton's forthcoming book that Trump explicitly told him he wanted to tie military aid to Ukraine to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. (Zelensky has said his communications with Trump involved no pressure for any investigation.)
Separately, Fox News has identified clips of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., now the lead House impeachment manager, in which he says Bolton had a distinct "lack of credibility" and was prone to "conspiracy theories." This week, Schiff said Bolton needed to testify in the impeachment trial as an important and believable witness.
"This is someone who's likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence, his proclivity to act without thinking, and his love of conspiracy theories," Schiff told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on March 22, 2018, when Trump named Bolton national security adviser.
"And I'll, you know, just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier, John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration," he said. "So, you add that kind of thinking to [former U.S. attorney] Joe diGenova and you have another big dose of unreality in the White House."

Schiff made similar arguments back in May 2005, saying in an interview with CNN's "Crossfire" that Bolton was "more focused on the next job than doing well at the last job" when he was up for nomination as ambassador to the United Nations under then-President George W. Bush.
"And particularly given the history, where we've had the politicizing of intelligence over WMD [weapons of mass destruction], why we would pick someone who the very same issue has been raised repeatedly, and that is John Bolton's politicization of the intelligence he got on Cuba and other issues, why we would want someone with that lack of credibility, I can't understand," Schiff had said.

Then-Sen. Barack Obama, in 2005, echoed those arguments, calling Bolton "damaged goods" whose appointment as ambassador means "we will have less credibility and ironically be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed."
Obama separately had said that Bolton "bullies, marginalizes and undermines those who do not agree with him." Other prominent Democrats agreed with him at the time.
Bolton himself had admitted in the past that he would be more than willing to lie if he felt it was in the nation's best interest.
“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010.
But, speaking to CNN on Monday, Schiff took a different approach -- calling Bolton essential to the "search for truth."

"I think for the senators, and I'm just not talking about the four that have been so much the focus of attention, for every senator, Democrat and Republican, I don't know how you can explain that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial and say you don't want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment," Schiff said on CNN's "New Day."

Seemingly responding to charges of hypocrisy, Schiff remarked on the Senate floor late Wednesday: "I'm no fan of John Bolton, but I like him a little more now than I used to."
Nevertheless, Democrats' sudden about-face has been drawing some light mockery from even left-of-center commentators.
"Democrats are currently begging Mitt Romney to agree with them that John Bolton should swoop to the impeachment trial and save the day, but remember: you're a despicable Trump-loving apologist if you said ahead of time that this entire thing would be a joke," mused journalist Michael Tracey.
Whether or not the Senate will vote to call Bolton as a witness -- or whether he will legally be able to testify -- remain open questions. Republicans have suggested that Schiff himself should testify over his inconsistent statements concerning his panel's contacts with the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.
Any witness resolution would likely require four Republican defections in the Senate, because in the event of a 50-50 tie, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts is highly likely to abstain rather than assert his debatable power to cast a tie-breaking vote. The witness question will be decided later this week, after the question-and-answer session of the trial wraps up.
Republicans, who have a 53-47 majority in the chamber, have suggested to Fox News that they would amend any witness resolution that subpoenas Bolton to also require the appearance of several additional witnesses favorable to the Trump administration -- likely killing support in the Senate for the whole witness package altogether.

In the meantime, concerns over Bolton potentially divulging classified information, as well as violating the legal principle of executive privilege, have emerged. On Wednesday, the White House revealed it had told Bolton not to publish his upcoming tell-all book about his time in the Trump administration until classified material is removed from the manuscript.

“Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information,” Ellen J. Knight, a National Security Council (NSC) aide, wrote in a letter to Bolton attorney Charles J. Cooper last week, which was obtained by Fox News.
Bolton’s book has disrupted Trump’s impeachment trial. The New York Times reported that Bolton's draft manuscript includes a claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on military aid to Ukraine to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden -- a central part of the case against Trump.
The letter from the NSC was transmitted to Bolton’s attorney on Jan 23. The New York Times article about the manuscript came out on Sunday, Jan. 26 -- three days after the letter was transmitted. That indicates that the NSC had already made the determination that there was top secret information in Bolton’s manuscript before anything became public.
Earlier in the day, CNN reported that the letter amounted to a threat against Bolton. But sources told Fox News this was not a “threat,” saying the letter merely points out that there is top secret information contained in the manuscript that cannot be released to the public.

“Based on our preliminary review, the manuscript appears to contain significant amounts of classified information,” Knight wrote to Bolton’s attorney.
The letter goes on to say that the NSC is happy to work with Bolton to get the information into a form that can be published.
“The manuscript remains under review in order for us to do our best to assist your client by identifying the classified information within the manuscript, while at the same time ensuring that publication does not harm the national security of the United States,” Knight wrote.
She added: “We will do our best to work with you to ensure your client’s ability to tell his story in a manner that protects U.S. national security.”

Bolton’s book is titled "The Room Where It Happened" and is scheduled for release sometime in March. Suspicions have been raised about where the leak to The New York Times originated. National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said Wednesday he is “pretty confident” the leak did not come from NSC. Meanwhile, Bolton, his publisher and book agents have denied "coordination" with The Times.
It has been in what’s called "pre-publication review," which is standard practice for any former government officials who held security clearances and publicly write or speak about their official work.

Also on Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, released a statement about a Sep. 23, 2019, phone call with Bolton.
“On that call, Ambassador Bolton suggested to me -- unprompted -- that the committee look into the recall of [Ukraine] Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in [Kiev]," Engel said.
Democrats have sought to connect the Trump administration’s ouster of Yovanovitch as ambassador to Ukraine to efforts to get the country to open certain investigations.
Even as criticism of Bolton heats up on the GOP side, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, has counseled his party against unloading on Bolton.
"It is my opinion, based on the law and facts, that additional testimony is unnecessary in this case," Graham said in a statement. “For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office."
That was the argument advanced by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz in his primetime defense of the president during the impeachment trial on Monday.

Graham continued: “It is clear to me that there is ample evidence for the President to be concerned about conflicts of interest on behalf of Hunter Biden and that Vice President Joe Biden’s failure to take appropriate action was unacceptable. This combination, in my view, undercut America’s message on reforming corruption in Ukraine. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest the Bidens’ behavior was harmful to the United States. The House managers’ claim that the sole reason President Trump temporarily paused the aid was purely personal and political, not public, does not withstand scrutiny."

Nevertheless, Graham added, "I am concerned when John Bolton’s credibility is attacked, it makes it more likely some will feel the need to call him as a witness. In that event, it would be important for the President and his team to call witnesses on other issues."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    4 years ago

Should be an interesting day to say the least. Be civil.................jrSmiley_20_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    4 years ago

Not to piss on Trump's parade or anything ....

In his tweet, Trump linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating "corruption" in Ukraine was a "high priority" for the Trump administration.
Bolton also called Trump's communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "warm and cordial," without mentioning any misconduct.

=========================

John Bolton Fired by Trump as National Security Adviser ...

...

Sep 10, 2019  · President Donald   Trump   said he   fired   his hawkish national security adviser, John   Bolton , after disagreeing “strongly” with many of his positions, ending a tumultuous tenure marked by multiple ..

=====================================================

In August Bolton was on the team in good standing and had his own foreign policy agenda he was trying to push on Trump. Why would he reveal at that time that Trump was committing an impeachable offense in Ukraine? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4  Ronin2    4 years ago

Thank you Adam Schiff and the rest of the Democratic nut jobs that like smearing anyone associated with Trump!

Then there is Bolton himself.

“If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," Bolton said in an interview with Fox Business in 2010.

The Defense doesn't need to do a damn thing but play those tapes and allow the Democrats', and Bolton's, own words to fry him as a credible witness. Karma is a real bitch.

If the Dems somehow manage to secure the vote for more witnesses then they deserved to get appropriately skewered. Schiff, the whistle blower, and anyone else including Joe and Hunter Biden should be called. Give the Democrats what they want, a real political mud slinging circus.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
6  lady in black    4 years ago

[delete]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  lady in black @6    4 years ago

deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    4 years ago

deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @6    4 years ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @6    4 years ago

deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.4  Ronin2  replied to  lady in black @6    4 years ago

Deleted for context by Charger

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7  Ender    4 years ago

So if Bolton is this serial liar then why not let him testify still?

If found to be lying in congress, he could go to jail.

But that is not the point trying to be made here is it.

 
 
 
Cathar
Freshman Silent
8  Cathar    4 years ago

The GOP under tRump is not a functioning political party but a cult. They spend their days collecting a paycheck in Congrees while ballooning the deficit. Amazing the Tea Party types and the Club for Growth is dead silent on the ballooning of deficits. I would bet that if this a Democrat they would be screaming bloody hell about the unrestrained debt and deficit.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Cathar @8    4 years ago
I would bet that if this a Democrat they would be screaming bloody hell about the unrestrained debt and deficit.

Indirectly it is the Dems. You are aware that the House appropriates funding right? And who has the majority hold on the purse strings? Yep. Dems

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
8.1.1  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1    4 years ago

hmmm, who held the majority in both house and senate when Obama was spending like a drunk sailor? I don't hear anyone ever blame or give credit to the House in regards to spending it is always the President. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  DRHunk @8.1.1    4 years ago

Deficit in billions by year..................

2011
$1,300 - Conservatives take House

2012
$1,087

2013
$679

2014
$485

2015
$438

2016
$585

2017
$665

2018
$779

2019
$1,092

2020
$1,101

Dark blue bold...............GOP majority. See a trend here since 2018 election where the House flipped back?

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
8.1.3  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.2    4 years ago

12-14 was nice, then it all went to hell again.  I don't keep up with these things but do you have the same info for Bush?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.4  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  DRHunk @8.1.3    4 years ago

2001
($128)

2002
$158

2003
$378

2004

$413

2005
$318

2006
$248

2007 - Dems take over House and Senate
$161

2008
$459

2009
$1,413

2010
$1,294

 
 
 
DRHunk
Freshman Silent
8.1.5  DRHunk  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.4    4 years ago

Interesting data, Im looking at it and don't see it being a Dem or Rep thing.  You can put historical events on the dates and see a increase that correlates to the event with a steady decline after that event was dealt with.  2008 housing crisis and economic melt down, Iraq/Afghan war.

 I am more concerned with what we don't see....What event occurred in 2016-2017 that has almost doubled the deficit since Trump has been in office.  It is the presidents budget that gets sent to the house and that drives the true spending is it not.. Sure it is finalized in the House but the Senate also has to approve it.

"The House of Representatives and the Senate create budget resolutions. Each chamber of Congress analyzes the President's budget proposal and drafts a budget resolution setting overall spending levels"

So what is in Trumps budget that is creating this massive increase in the deficit?

I think it is the tax cuts...the terrible terrible tax cuts, but that's just my opinion. Happened under Bush also...negative $128B deficit to 378B in red by 2003, that $500B flip.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9  Tessylo    4 years ago

83954357_880320445734016_5887736989800726528_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ohc=21ZDdGI6yTwAX_8d2wG&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=34ee9c056d30ca10ace36e023b24a67e&oe=5E95E6F6

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @9    4 years ago

Stupid list. The only part it got right was the golfing.

Stripping environmental protections. You mean rolling back Obama's EA's and EO's. If the Democrats are that concerned start a bill in the House to make those protections into law. Oh wait, that would mean negotiating with Republicans in the Senate, and Trump, to get a bill that would be passed. Nevermind.

Raising the deficit. The House controls the power of the purse. Better get on the Democrats.

Getting tax breaks for everyone. Only in leftist land a tax break across the board only for millionaires.

Fucking porn stars. Have proof that he has had sex with any since his term started?

Destroying social programs- what part of EO's and EA's are not laws did the left miss?

Starting Wars- sorry? What wars has Trump started. He tried to end our involvement with the one is Syria and everyone had such a cow that Trump backed down and we are still there. The left has been predicting war with North Korea and Iran, so far nothing- how long do we have to wait?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2    4 years ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
9.2.3  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2    4 years ago
Oh wait, that would mean negotiating with Republicans in the Senate, and Trump, to get a bill that would be passed

McConnell has made it clear he will not even submit any House bills for votes, even those with bipartisan support. Kind of hard to do much with a total obstructionist in charge of the Senate. Why is it that everyone who makes it to Speaker turns into an absolute asshole? I guess it's the power trip.

But with all the political divisions and partisan crap, both parties have been relying too much on EA's and EO's from Bush onward. They figure it's easier to go around than to try to actually work together.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @9.2.3    4 years ago

McConnell is doing the exact same thing that Reid did to the Republican House.

Just like with the Republican bills for the Democratic Senate, there are many poison pills in the Democrat ones that Republicans will never agree to. The House and Senate cannot get big items like the budget done on a timely basis. How are they going to work out minute details in a law?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to    4 years ago

A third party in 2020 will put Trump in the White House for 4 more years. There isnt a third party candidate on earth that can draw from his base. 

Like everyone else, moderates need to suck it up and support the Democrat so we can put an end to this travesty. 

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
9.2.8  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2.5    4 years ago
McConnell is doing the exact same thing that Reid did to the Republican House.

That's why I made the comment about all Speakers being assholes.

The House and Senate cannot get big items like the budget done on a timely basis. How are they going to work out minute details in a law?

Unfortunately, I don't think they are. And instead of trying to resolve the issue, each President just keeps grabbing more and more power so they can say they got something done (even though the next President can use his own EOs to overturn those things). The people in Congress care more about being re-elected than actually doing their jobs, and as r.t.b. pointed out, both parties just keep pandering to their lunatic fringes. It's all party over country with these politicians.

Hell, I just read that Sanders is already drafting a bunch of EOs he plans to implement if he gets elected.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to    4 years ago

A third party candidate doesnt need money or a convention or anything other than name recognition to potentially draw enough votes away from the Democrat to give the election to Trump.  In fact I fully expect that someone will try it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to    4 years ago

So you will have to destroy the country with Trump in order to save it. 

rofl. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
10  Split Personality    4 years ago
In a day-after tweet, Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz, the defense attorney and former college professor, complained about the portrayal of his testimony Wednesday night that a president, if he believes his re-election is in the “national interest,” is essentially immune from impeachment for actions in support of that idea.

That argument left even some of Trump's top allies backing away.

“They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything,” the retired professor said Thursday. “I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.”

I was a lifetime Alan Specter( R ) supporter until he switched parties and debated Admiral Joe Sestak (D).

It was painfully obvious from the debate and Specters day after comments denying what he said that the octogenarian

had reached his limit.

Dershowitz has reached his limit also.

 
 

Who is online

devangelical
JBB


122 visitors