“A fine mess you’ve gotten us into now, Johnnie.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-use-bolton-book-revelations-to-bolster-case-for-impeachment-witnesses

I imagine the battle plans for the Trump attorneys will be altered a bit.

Yes, there are two sides to the story. Which as been the defense so far.

Everybody, absolutely everybody, is lying except for the president.

Or the exact opposite, which is the House managers’ position.

With the new revelations, the winner of a lying contest, 10,000+ and counting, might not be in the strongest position.

Meanwhile, the drama escalates like the deficit. “Lucy, you have some ‘splainin’ to do.”

24 thoughts on ““A fine mess you’ve gotten us into now, Johnnie.”

  1. RE: “I imagine the battle plans for the Trump attorneys will be altered a bit.”

    Not necessarily. As your link points out, the White House has had a copy of the manuscript for several weeks.

    Also, no one has quoted the relevant passage. We don’t know how significant, or insignificant, it might turn out to be.

    Like

    1. The copy was just for vetting classified material. I don’t think those reviewers are necessarily politically aligned.

      The only change to the trial will be the probability of calling witnesses since it would be hard to defend a no vote if Bolton will testify under oath. Just need 4 Senators. And I believe there are already 3 on board.

      The question of a Biden testimony might be not such a big bargaining chip.

      “What lurks in the hearts of men…only the Shadow knows.”

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Evidently “team Trump” isn’t worried about Chalupa.

          I suppose she’ll pop up eventually. Considering her efforts to expose Manafort for the corrupt person he was, with relations to Russian intelligence and all, team Trump might not want to open that can of worms.

          Like

    2. RE: “The copy was just for vetting classified material. I don’t think those reviewers are necessarily politically aligned.”

      No. The copy is subject to legal review, as well. It is not conceivable that Trump’s impeachment defense lawyers are unaware of the relvant content.

      Like

      1. @Roberts

        If you are correct and the Trump lawyers knew that John Bolton had first hand knowledge of the central issue – the Quid pro Quo – and yet proceeded to deny that there was one, then they should be sanctioned and/or disbarred. You are not allowed to present known falsehoods to a court. The Senate should have at least the same standard. Don’t you think?

        Liked by 3 people

      2. RE: “The Senate should have at least the same standard. Don’t you think?”

        Yes, I do. But how, exactly, do you propose that Trump’s lawyers lied?

        It is certainly true that the prosecution has presented no evidence of a quid pro quo. Quite the contrary. Thus, in reference to the presecution’s case, it is valid to assert that no evidence of quid pro quo exists.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          They stated as a FACT that there was no Quid pro quo. According to you they had good reason to know that such claims were lies because they had seen Bolton’s draft.

          They did not merely lie about no evidence of a quid pro quo existing (plenty does) they stated as a fact that there was no quid pro quo. From the presentation by Mike Purpura Trump Defense lawyer . . .

          “The Democrats’ allegation that the President engaged in a quid pro quo is unfounded, and contrary to the facts . . .”

          Liked by 2 people

  2. Trump and Pompeo both reacted by calling Bolton a liar.

    SHOCKING, just SHOCKING that two of the leading Keystone Kops would simply deny and deflect…

    No longer laughable, just sad.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. RE: “Best way to find out would be to have him testify under oath.”

        Or publish the book, or the relevant excerpt. The Senate will decide whether it needs to hear from Bolton directly. They may well determine that they don’t need to. And that would be fine.

        Like

        1. RE: “A book is not written under oath. It is a very poor substitute for sworn testimony.”

          Maybe not, but you don’t know what’s written in the book. It may not merit sworn testimony.

          Like

          1. @Roberts

            Journalists from the New York Times have seen the draft of Bolton’s book and they report that it contains dozens of pages where Bolton tells what he knows about the Ukraine affair and the blocking of the military aid. Since Trump is calling him a liar, it is fair to conclude that what he has to say is both relevant and damning. Don’t you think?

            Liked by 3 people

        2. “The Senate will decide whether it needs to hear from Bolton directly.”

          Only if at least 4 GOP members break ranks. And if they decide not to, I see that as a miscarriage of Congressional justice. Poll have shown that 70% of the American public want the Senate to hear from witnesses. If they are representing the people, they almost have to hear from witnesses. – IMHO

          Liked by 2 people

  3. Kind of suspicious that news of Bolton’s book excerpt suddenly gets magically leaked right at this point. So far, not one witness has been able to definitively say that Trump withheld aid to get dirt for his campaign. Some said they thought so and some said they didn’t. Even if a disgruntled ex-employee made such a claim, it had better be on tape or in Trumps writing that Trump said he wanted political dirt on the Bidens for his campaign or it is just another they thought so. The Bidens being looked into is not in dispute, the purpose is. Intent and clarity is everything in law and I doubt mind reading is admissible.

    Like

    1. @Bobr

      Those goalposts keep moving, don’t they? Now the testimony of the National Security Adviser is not evidence. Oh no, he has to have those illegal instructions in a memo or on a tape recording.

      “The Bidens being looked into is not in dispute?”

      LOL! Now it is not, but it was until the lies were overturned by testimony of officials ignoring Trump’s gag orders. It used to be all about Ukraine corruption, not the Bidens.

      Granted that the release of this book draft by SOMEBODY comes at a very awkward moment for Mr. Trump’s efforts to suppress the evidence of his crimes. Why do you suppose that is? As I understand it, only the people and lawyers around the President – HIS people – had access to it. Why does such a Dear Leader inspire so much disloyalty in HIS people? The leakiness of HIS people has been a problem for Trump for his entire Presidency.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Your assertion that the Bidens and 2016 election being looked into is some sort of reversal or moving of the goal posts. It is not. It has been maintained all along that they were just part of an overall corruption investigation in Ukraine. The president even said it himself that it is his duty to expose corruption. This had been going on long before Biden announced his candidacy.

        Like

        1. @Bobr

          The goalposts I was referring to is the kind of evidence needed to prove what happened. It used to be testimony from people with firsthand knowledge. Now that such testimony is more likely to be available, it has now become a written or taped confession by Trump himself.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. “. The president even said it himself that it is his duty to expose corruption.”

          He could start by taking a selfie and posting to his twitter account with a caption “CORRUPTION PERSONIFIED”.
          Because he could care less about corruption in Ukraine. Remember, he really only wanted and investigation “anonced”, not actually opened.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Your additional problem that I was referring to that needed audio or in writing is Trump conclusively saying he made any decisions for the purpose of his campaign. Without that, you only have an opinion. You keep referring to committing some crime but fail to specify what crime that was. If you are going to claim bribery or Leonard’s claim of extortion, why are they not in the articles? Hint: because Democrats know they cannot meet the lawful elements of either one.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s