45 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-27-20

  1. Exposed as the fraud he and his “trial” are.


    “VIDEO: Trump trial team exposed Adam Schiff’s lies and manipulation behind impeachment

    “[Schiff] had been caught out saying something that wasn’t truthful about that contact [with the so-called whistleblower], he had a reason to not want that inquiry. It was he who ensured that there wasn’t any inquiry into that.””

    “Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions.

    Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable:”

    “Philbin also demonstrated how Schiff manipulated the House proceedings, from the intial emergence of the so-called whistleblower to denying Trump’s attorney’s a meaningful opportunity to particilate. Philbing showed video exposing Schiff’s shifting positions and interactions with the so-called “whistleblower”.

    This is a key point that is not well understood in the public — Schiff created the pretext (the “whistleblower”), lied about Democrats having not contact with the “whistleblower,” then used his power as Intel Committee chair to prevent inquiry into the “whistleblower” and his interaction with Democrats. It was a devastating expose on Schiff’s manipulative lies.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. So by the way, where is Waldo the “whistleblower” anyway? He seems to have vanished. Can’t have his testimony being destroyed in the Senate, right Schifty?


    In his presentation on behalf of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial yesterday, White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin raised the question of Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Why have we not heard from him? Why has Schiff deep-sixed the testimony about him? RealClearPolitics has posted video of Philbin’s remarks along with this (lightly edited) transcript:

    PHILBEN: I want to touch on one last point before I yield to one of my colleagues. That relates to the whistleblower. The whistleblower who we haven’t heard that much about who started all of this. The whistleblower we know from the letter that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent that he thought that the whistleblower had political bias. We don’t know exactly what the political bias was because the Inspector General testified in the House committees in an executive session, and that transcript is still secret. It wasn’t transmitted up to the House Judiciary Committee. We haven’t seen it. We don’t know what’s in it. We don’t know what he was asked and what he revealed about the whistleblower. Now you would think that before going forward with an impeachment proceeding against the President of the United States that you would want to find out something about the complainant that had started all of it because motivations, bias, reasons for wanting to bring this complaint could be relevant, but there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

    Recent reports, public reports, suggest that potentially the whistleblower was an Intelligence Community staffer who worked with then Vice President Biden on Ukraine matters, which if true would suggest an even greater reason for wanting to know about potential bias or motive for the whistleblower. At first when things started, it seemed like everyone agreed that we should hear from the whistleblower including Manager Schiff. I think we have what he said.

    SCHIFF (tape): Yes, we would love to talk directly with the whistleblower.

    We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.

    We don’t need the whistleblower.

    PHILBIN: What changed? At first Manager Schiff agreed we should hear the unfiltered testimony from the whistleblower, but then he changed his mind and he suggested that it was because now we had the transcript. But the second clip there was from September 29th which was four days after the transcript had been released. But there was something else that came into play, and that was something that Manager Schiff had said earlier when he was asked about whether he had spoken to the whistleblower.

    SCHIFF (tape): We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.

    PHILBIN: It turned out that that statement was not truthful. Around October 2nd or 3rd, it was exposed that the Manager Schiff’s staff at least had spoken with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed the complaint and potentially had given some guidance, some sort to the whistleblower. After that point it became critical to shut down any inquiry into the whistleblower. During the House hearings, of course Manager Schiff was in charge. He was chairing the hearings. That creates a real problem from a due process perspective, from a search for truth perspective, because he was an interested fact witness at that point. He had a reason, since he had been caught out saying something that wasn’t truthful about that contact, he had a reason to not want that inquiry. It was he who ensured that there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

    Now this is relevant here I think because as you’ve heard from my colleagues, a lot of what we’ve heard over the past 23 hours, over the past three days, has been from Chairman Schiff. He has been telling you things like what’s in President Trump’s head, what’s in President Zelensky’s head. It’s all his interpretation of the facts and the evidence trying to pull inferences out of things.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Well I guess you could make the argument Mexico IS the border wall, and they are paying for it. So in a roundabout way, Mission Accomplished! 🙂


    “By turning back caravans, Mexico is acting as Trump’s border wall, critics say”

    “One year ago, Mexico’s often chaotic southern border appeared relatively orderly: Mexican authorities processed thousands of U.S.-bound migrants for humanitarian visas, allowing them to travel north legally.

    The free-transit regimen was a drastic change of policy pushed by a new Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who had denounced his predecessors for having done what he called the dirty work of Washington in deterring migrants’ northbound passage.

    But this week, López Obrador’s government greeted migrants in a more hostile fashion. Mexican National Guard troops in full riot gear blocked their way and fired tear gas canisters to disperse those seeking to breach the nation’s border with Guatemala. Hundreds of people were put on planes and buses back to Honduras, where most of the migrants in the latest caravan began their journey.

    For López Obrador, Mexico’s first avowedly leftist president in a generation and a political campaigner who pledged to welcome migrants, the last year brought a substantial shift in his view of how to handle the Central American influx.

    Detractors have accused López Obrador of bending to the Trump administration’s tactics — including threats of tariffs on goods imported from Mexico — in creating a virtual wall in Mexico’s southern boundary with Guatemala.

    During 2019, the Mexican government’s initial welcome mat for migrants quickly shifted into an enforcement-first policy of detention, deportation and sending National Guard forces to block migrants’ passage from southern Mexico. Succumbing to U.S. pressure to stop the migrant flow has become a signature policy of the leftist president who regularly vows to respect the human rights of migrants.”


    No one’s rights are being violated. They’re illegals, and have very few. Just more drama from drama queens.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Things are escalating in China.

    And the question should be asked, was this a bio-warfare experiment that escaped the lab?


    “China’s President Xi Jinping warns rate of Wuhan Coronavirus infections are accelerating

    U.S. evacuates Americans from Wuhan. Report suggests city was seat of bio-warfare lab. New cases in Chicago & SoCal reported. Virus reaches Europe.”

    “How bad is the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak? So bad that the normally secretive president of China, Xi Jinping, formally announced the rate of infections of the potentially deadly coronavirus is ‘accelerating’ and that at least one doctor has died from the virus.

    The virus-hit Chinese city of Wuhan, already on lockdown and where the virus is thought to have originated, banned most vehicle use downtown and Hong Kong said it would close schools for two weeks as authorities scramble to stop the spread of an illness that has infected more than 1,400 people worldwide and killed 41.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke following an emergency government meeting to warn that the spread of the killer virus is worsening, as video emerged showing medics collapsing at hospitals in the capital of central China’s Hubei province as the coronavirus outbreak continues to move across the world.”


    “Snakes and bat soup have been identified as possible sources of the new virus, which causes severe respiratory distress, pneumonia, and kidney failure. However, according to an Israeli biological warfare expert, the deadly animal virus may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory linked to China’s covert biological weapons program.

    Radio Free Asia this week rebroadcast a local Wuhan television report from 2015 showing China’s most advanced virus research laboratory known the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Radio Free Asia reported.

    The laboratory is the only declared site in China capable of working with deadly viruses.

    Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who has studied Chinese bio warfare, said the institute is linked to Beijing’s covert biological weapons program.

    “Certain laboratories in the institute have probably been engaged, in terms of research and development, in Chinese [biological weapons], at least collaterally, yet not as a principal facility of the Chinese BW alignment,” Mr. Shoham told The Washington Times.

    The first American coronavirus patient, a Seattle-area man, is being treated mainly by a robot, and he is in stable condition.

    U.S. health officials have also diagnosed a Chicago-area patient with the illness and are monitoring 63 other patients who are suspected of being at risk of infection with the pathogen.”


  5. Still Ewwwwwww!


    “FBI reviewing claims Ilhan Omar married her brother”

    “The Federal Bureau of Investigation is reviewing claims Rep. Ilhan Omar married her brother, The Post has learned.

    Two FBI agents held an hours-long meeting in Minnesota in mid-October with a concerned party who handed over a trove of documents regarding Omar’s 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a source with knowledge of the event said.

    At the meeting, first reported by website The Blaze, the agents discussed concerns the Somali-born Democrat married Elmi, a British citizen rumored to be her brother, so he could obtain a green card and study in America, the source said.

    The two agents said they would share the information with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Department of Education, but did not commit to opening an investigation into the firebrand lawmaker, the source said.

    If Omar did marry her brother, she could be found guilty of committing marriage fraud — a felony offense punishable with a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000.”


    Deport her.


  6. If Trump wasn’t Trump, he’d be Reagan.


    “Last February at CPAC, while I chatted about Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection prospects with an influential conservative radio talk show host, he made a statement that resonated with me: “If Trump wasn’t Trump, he’d be Reagan.”

    Given the robust economy and lengthy list of accomplishments that my fellow Republicans love to recite (319 to be exact) — along with a “promises kept” timeline from Trump’s reelection campaign — I agreed then, as I do now, that the president’s reelection chances minus all the drama equal President Reagan’s.

    Moreover, I can personally attest that among Republicans — when five or more are gathered in his name — this discussion topic often arises: “Trump is the greatest president since Reagan.”

    And then there’s this quote from a Florida Republican Party official that recently appeared in the Palm Beach Post: “‘I used to say that President Trump is our best president since Ronald Reagan. I don’t say that anymore. I say President Trump is our best president since Abraham Lincoln,’” he said to cheers.

    It’s no joke that many Republicans fantasize about 2020 as the sequel to 1984 — Reagan’s blow-out reelection victory over Walter Mondale — the lackluster former vice president who served under an even more lackluster president, Jimmy Carter.

    For the record, Reagan winning 525 Electoral College votes with only 13 for Mondale —10 from his home state of Minnesota and three from the District of Columbia — stands today as the GOP’s highwater mark. (It’s hard to believe now, but second is President Richard Nixon’s 1972 reelection trouncing of Sen. George McGovern with an Electoral College victory of 520 to 17.)

    Ah, the glory days of my party winning “red states” in every direction across the fruited plain — before they were even called “red.” (That started during the 2000 election.)

    Given Trump’s RealClearPolitics job approval rating average of 44.8%, compared to 52% for Reagan at this time in 1984 — it is unlikely that even with a Reagan-like economy, Trump could win in a landslide. But he could still win reelection after a nothing-burger impeachment (likely forgotten by Election Day) is overshadowed by all the “promises kept.”

    The truth is millions of Americans who are not hard-core MAGA hat wearers will vote to reelect him by overlooking “Trump being Trump” because “I love how my 401K is doing.” This week, I heard those exact words from a middle-aged white male luxury car salesman in Florida. He gleefully proclaimed that “business is great,” but he is not thrilled with Trump’s persona and behavior that resulted in his impeachment.

    Thus, the conundrum upon which Trump’s reelection prospects hinge: Do fat paychecks and plump 401Ks provide an affirmative answer to the question: Trump is Trump, but can he still be Reagan? “


  7. She’s just doing what anti-Semites do, lying about the Jews.

    She’s disgusting, and our country should be ashamed she holds a seat in Congress.


    Rashida Tlaib is a freshman Congresswoman from Michigan and a member of the far-left “Squad.” She is a Muslim, and her animus toward Israel and Jews is perhaps worse even than Ilhan Omar’s. Yesterday Tlaib retweeted the claim that a “herd of violent Israeli settlers” had “kidnapped and murdered” a seven-year-old Palestinian boy. The original tweet was accompanied by a video that showed an Israeli rescue team recovering the body of the boy from a cistern. The Jerusalem Post has the story; this is the tweet:”

    “The whole thing was a hoax, made up out of whole cloth. (Not the death of the boy, which was real, but the assertion that he was murdered by Israeli “settlers.”) The tweet by the Palestinian politician, Hanan Ashrawi, has now been deleted, as has Tlaib’s retweet. But Tlaib’s deletion was silent, with no explanation or apology, or any attempt to correct the misinformation that she had spread to tens of thousands on Twitter.”


    She’s vile.


  8. We continue to allow foreign meddling in our elections. And no, it’s not the Russians…..


    “George Soros’ Efforts to Decimate Criminal Justice System Bearing Fruit

    “This is about a man who has no connection to my corner of the world attempting to impose his agenda on a crucial local race without any real understanding of how that will impact the people who have to live with the fallout.””

    “As we noted in 2018, leftist billionaire George Soros has been focusing his intricate web of foundations, super PACs, and assorted organizations on the nation’s District Attorney offices.

    Since that time, Capital Research Center has done amazing work in uncovering the extent of Soros’ involvement in transforming our criminal justice system from the bottom up.

    Financier and left-wing philanthropist George Soros contributed large sums to progressive candidates running for district attorney (DA) all around the country, apparently in hopes of changing the law enforcement system at the county or district level.

    Since 2015, he has spent more than $17 million on district attorney and other local races in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona, but also in large, predominantly left-of-center states such as California and New York. In 2016, Soros dropped $2,000,000 into a single sheriff race in Maricopa County, Arizona, helping progressive candidate Paul Penzone win the election with ease over longtime incumbent Joe Arpaio. He has given millions of dollars in grants to candidates in several other counties as well.

    . . . . This effort has a clear motive, spelled out in a 2014 press release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) after Soros’s Open Society Foundations contributed $50 million toward the Union’s Campaign to End Mass Incarceration, which is a part of their wider Smart Justice campaign.

    . . . . It seems that Soros decided his massive donation to the ACLU was not enough and started personally funding county prosecutor races.

    Critics of Soros’s efforts have raised the concern that such blind partisan funding can weaken the vetting process regarding the candidates’ characters. Some felt these concerns were documented when Robert Shuler Smith—a district attorney for Hinds County, Mississippi, whom Soros had backed—was tried in criminal court for two counts of suspected conspiracy to hinder prosecution and one count of suspected robbery, among other charges.

    As one reporter put it, “This isn’t about either of [the candidates] personally. This is about a man who has no connection to my corner of the world attempting to impose his agenda on a crucial local race without any real understanding of how that will impact the people who have to live with the fallout.”

    As we noted in November 2019, one of the recipients of Soros’ backing is newly-elected San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin: San Francisco: Socialist Son of Imprisoned Weather Underground Terrorists Who Was Raised By Bill Ayers and Worked for Hugo Chavez Elected D.A.

    Since his election, Boudin has fired seven of the district’s top attorneys, those who have built reputations as being “tough on crime.”

    The Washington Times reports:

    Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s newest district attorney, the guy once referred to as “communist” by city sheriffs, kicked off his new law enforcement leadership role by, get this, firing seven of the community’s experienced prosecutors — the ones, notably, known as tough on crime.

    But it all makes sense. This is the city represented by none other than Speaker Nancy Pelosi — and Boudin, according to one past assessment, is practically a raging “communist.”

    . . . . Now Boudin’s won and taken office. And as one of his first official acts, he’s given the boot to those who would probably oppose his agenda.

    Boudin claims he “had to make difficult staffing decisions in order to put in place a management team that will help me accomplish the work I committed to do for San Francisco.””


    And accomplish he has. Crime is up, enforcement is down, and crap and needles cover the sidewalks. Welcome to the Democrat Utopia that is San Francisco.




  9. Like

  10. Like

  11. I know nothing about the Bolton story and book, but I do know that books like this which may have classified information, have to be cleared before publication by the government agencies looking for potential classified information.

    Did that happen?


  12. I’ve said before:
    Everyone in Washington knows who “Whistleblower” is. Rush knows.
    As for me? Anonymous carries zero weight, regardless who it might be.


  13. Michelle, from the Foxnews story:



    … The Times further claimed Bolton had shared a manuscript of his forthcoming book with “close associates” — prompting Bolton’s team to deny the claim, and assert that the National Security Council’s [NSC’s] review process of pending manuscripts is “corrupted” and prone to leaks.

    A “pre-publication review” at the NSC, which functions as the White House’s national security forum, is standard for any former government officials who held security clearances and publicly write or speak publicly about their official work. The review typically would focus on ferreting out any classified or sensitive material in advance of publication, and could take from days to months. …


  14. more


    … Other conservatives also suggested Sunday evening that Bolton’s team may have leaked the information themselves while using the media as unwitting tools to juice their book sales. Online merchants began taking orders for Bolton’s book, entitled “The Room Where It Happened,” just as the Times’ story broke, with a March release date.

    “A former advisor to the President and the NY Times turned impeachment hearings into a marketing strategy and there are still people wandering around wondering how we ever ended up with Donald Trump,” wrote podcast host Stephen Miller. …


  15. ___________________

    … Sarah Tinsley, a senior adviser to Bolton, told Fox News he had submitted a hard copy draft of his manuscript to the NSC several weeks ago for “pre-publication review,” but insisted he had not shared it with anyone else. …


  16. Lather, rinse, and yet another repeat.

    Same plan Comey used to sell his book.

    Same plan used against Kavanaugh.


    “I think the timing of all of this is very, very suspect,” she said, noting that it came right after the Trump defense team began its rebuttal Saturday at the Senate impeachment trial.

    “It’s very clear the president did nothing wrong. Then suddenly, this manuscript has magically appeared in the hands of The New York Times, making very, very big claims. This is … the same publisher that [James] Comey used, also. The fact that magically, again, the book ordering preorder link popped up a couple hours after all of this hit,” she added.

    The Times exclusively reported Sunday that Bolton’s book manuscript included a claim that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.”


    It was obviously leaked to the NYT just in time for pre-order sales. Again. Just like Comey’s. Yawn.

    But let’s play along and make a deal.

    Bolton’s testimony, for Schiffs.


  17. Bolton has yet again started a war he has no clue how to win.


    And some questions…..


    “Even if some of what’s claimed is true, it’s hardly an impeachable issue given that America’s fate doesn’t rest on aid to Ukraine, which is only going to steal it. Yet the Bolton claim is still suspicious. Why didn’t Bolton say anything about this at the time of his acrimonious firing? And why was he talking to an ex-employee about classified phone calls with foreign leaders, which is what Hill was at the time of the famous phone call to the president of Ukraine and Bolton’s talk with her about it later?

    Supposedly, his acrimonious exit from the Trump administration was due to his history of leaking to the press and the Trumpsters finding out about it. Combine that allegation with the unauthorized Fiona-chat and the whole thing might point to Bolton as the leaker in this book-sale case, too.

    It would make sense from a motivational point of view, too. Trump, fairly or not, fired him on negative terms. But the self-interest in wanting to promote book sales through perfect timing of Amazon opening orders, is a very old swamp power game of selling books, using the New York Times as a marketing agent. James Comey did that earlier.

    One wants to think better of Bolton than this, but if things are as they appear, maybe it’s time to put him in the #NeverTrump dustbin along with Bill Kristol and Max Boot. The money-grubbing aspect of the whole thing is ample reason all by itself is reason enough not to call witnesses as Adam Schiff slavers, because there’s some funny stuff going on right now. Schiff had his chance to call Bolton and he blew it. Let Schiff stew about that.”


  18. Michelle at 10;07….. we have an answer to your question.

    Like I said.


    Talk about rigged.

    So who over at the NSC would see/review this before publication, and would be in a perfect position to leak it to the NYT?

    Why Alexander Vindman’s brother, of course. Totally coincidental, I’m sure….

    The fix is in.


    “A source close to the Trump administration informs Breitbart News that Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior ethics lawyer for the National Security Council (NSC), is in charge of reviewing all publications by current and former NSC officials.

    The official added that Yevgeny Vindman could have seen former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s draft manuscript after it was submitted for prepublication review at the end of December.

    “The review is a standard process that allows the NSC to review book manuscripts, op-eds, or any other material for any classified material to be eliminated before publication.

    The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Bolton’s draft book manuscript, which had been submitted to the NSC for prepublication review on Dec. 30, alleged that President Trump told Bolton in August 2019 that he wanted to withhold security assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, among others.

    It was not clear if the Times had seen the Bolton manuscript; its sources were “multiple people” who “described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair.”

    Bolton’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, issued a statement in which he said: “It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted.” He did not confirm or deny the Times‘ reporting on the content of the manuscript.

    Yevegeny Vindman is the identical twin brother of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who is one of Democrats’ key witnesses in the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The brothers have offices across from each other.

    Alexander Vindman told the House Intelligence Committee in his closed-door deposition that he told his brother, Yevgeny, about President Trump’s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.”


    Yeah, we’re done here. This is BS. A huge, stinking pile of it. Don’t fall for it, and watch your step.


  19. From WSJ



    From Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism. (Lehrer died Thursday at 85):

    * Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.

    * Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

    * Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.

    * Assume the same about all people on whom I report. . . .

    * Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything

    * Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be allowed to attack another anonymously.

    * “I am not in the entertainment business.”

    Liked by 1 person

  20. From World Magazine’s ‘Sift” … Short and plain for those of us catching or just trying to keep up:



    Bolton book renews calls for witnesses

    Former national security adviser John Bolton claims President Donald Trump told him he wanted to withhold millions of dollars of aid from Ukraine until it helped investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. The New York Times obtained a draft of Bolton’s upcoming book in which he wrote about the alleged conversation in August. The president denied Bolton’s account on Sunday, accusing him of just trying to sell more books.

    How will this affect Trump’s impeachment trial? Sen. Mitt Romey, R-Utah, would like Bolton to testify. He said on Monday he thought the revelations in the book would make others more likely to feel the same way. If three other GOP senators agree, Democrats would have enough votes to call witnesses.

    On Saturday, lawyers Pat Cipollone and Michael Purpura presented the first two hours of Trump’s defense arguments. Attorneys Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, and Pam Bondi are resuming the defense on Monday afternoon.


  21. It’s interesting when you get to the bare facts.
    Fact is: None of this matters. Lots of TV and Congress time. But none of it matters.
    The reason I say this”

    Elvera, as you know, has dementia.
    She is watching TV on FoxNews.
    A senator is defending trump.

    Elvera comes in confused, “I have no idea of what is going on”
    I explain to her the facts. AS:

    “Nothing is going on.
    They are having a trial.
    The Democrats have made speeches saying that Trump is a bad guy and we need to get rid of him.”
    Now, the Republicans are making speeches saying Trump is not so bad and we need to keep him.
    But none of this matters because each of them has decided before this started how they would vote.”

    That is a summation of the proceedings.


  22. No. there’s nothing else on TV.
    There are Gunsmoke reruns, cartoons, cooking and horse channels, but nothing someone with limited attention span would like.
    On Saturday and Sunday evenings, there are good music programs. But even the Gospel channels are men preaching. And she doesn’t want that.
    There is nothing else. I’ve searched for it.


  23. If Romney was really concerned with any of what he says, then he’ll vote against it as it stands and send it back to the House where they can then challenge Bolton’s testimony and the executive privilege involved in court as they should have done.

    This is not the Senates job.

    And again everyone ignores that this is all old news.

    Oh, and leaking what could be classified details to the NYT and others is still a crime. But no one is interested, just like when Comey did it with the exact same reporter. When are people gonna stop falling for the same BS repackaged over and over again?

    C’mon people.

    And oh look, guess who just went to the top of the best seller list before it’s even out, just as it was intended to do. Maybe people are as stupid as they think.


    “If you are observant, you’ve probably noticed a pattern with media “bombshells” involving Donald Trump. They usually boil down to something we’ve already known spun in a way to make it seem newly nefarious. Stamp it as a “scoop” or “breaking news” and away we go.

    Last night, another supposedly major story dropped from The New York Times. It’s from John Bolton’s upcoming book and was leaked to Maggie Haberman. We’ll just start with the headline and move into the body of the article, as the two are disconnected in some ways.”

    “What’s not said in this headline is important, but to be fair, it does at least leave things vague enough that it’s not outright false. The obvious implication here is that Trump told Bolton to hold up aid, that Ukraine was threatened with said hold up, and that it proves a quid pro quo solely to get Joe Biden. That just so happens to be the narrative the media have inferred as well and are running with.

    Sounds really bad, right?

    The problem is that the actual meat of the article on that matter is much less sensational than is currently being portrayed by every blue-check mark journalist gasping on Twitter right now. Here’s what’s really being alleged.”

    “The above-highlighted excerpt is the key. What appears to have happened is that Trump told Bolton that he preferred to not send the aid to Ukraine until they turned over materials dealing with the Russia investigation. Let me repeat that: the Russia investigation.

    While the Times then desperately tries to tie that to Biden to push the favored political narrative, it’s clear by how this is written that there’s no actual mention of politically targeting the Bidens. If that were in the manuscript, they would not have left it so ambiguous.

    In short, Trump let a subordinate know that he was skeptical of Ukraine’s actions on fighting corruption and that he wanted to see them hand over materials relevant to investigating 2016 election interference before he released the aid. Nowhere in this article is there any indication that Ukraine was bribed, nor that they even knew the aid was on hold.

    Where does that leave us? It leaves us about four months ago, as we’ve known since almost the beginning of this saga that the aid was 1) put on hold and 2) Trump wanted to see how the corruption investigations were undertaken. The questions surrounding impeachment don’t center on those things, but rather they center around the national interest and whether it was a purely political move. While some argue even those questions are largely irrelevant, as the President has broad authority on foreign policy, for the sake of argument let’s pretend they are important. Even still, absolutely nothing in this article moves the ball forward on those matters. Rather, it’s a rehash of old information presented from Bolton’s point of view via his new book.

    In other words, nothing has actually changed. But regardless, “journalists” like Jake Tapper will ignore the actual money quote and report it as they see fit.”


    Stop. Falling. For. The. Same. Tricks. Over. And. Over. Again.


  24. They are Kavanaughing the impeachment trial, just like they did to Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, with false and unfounded allegations.

    Lather, rinse, repeat…..

    “Bolton sent his spokeswoman out after the news broke on this story to make claims that the leak of this material didn’t come from Bolton’s camp. That’s hard to believe given his book pre-order page went up concurrently, as if the entire thing was orchestrated to sell copies of it. It’s also not a coincidence that this is the same reporter that received the Comey memos.”

    Same reporter, same book publisher, only a different deep stater hawking his new book.


    “We’ve seen this game before. It’s an attempt to blow up the Senate trial just as Trump’s lawyers are getting ready to make their main defense today. This just happened to be leaked the night before, to The New York Times, and Bolton’s hawking a book at the same time? Come on, it is so transparent and I can’t be the only one tired of this cycle.

    There’s an easy way to tell that what’s being reported isn’t as big of a deal as it’s being framed. Namely, by noting that the Times chose not to actually quote the manuscript directly. That tells you a lot about what is or isn’t actually in it given that the Times felt they needed to keep a certain level of ambiguity to maintain their narrative.

    I have to think “bombshells” like this only jade the public more. People are done with this story and Bolton’s book isn’t going to rescue it.”


    Stop falling for it.


  25. Here’s what the press should be asking, but they’re good little Democrats who bury the lede for their preferred party. Always.

    The 18th witness says Schiff and the “whistleblower” are liars.


    “While presenting the Democrats’ case for impeachment on the Senate floor, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) kept referencing 17 witnesses who testified during the House impeachment inquiry. But there were 18 of them. Schiff and the Democrats are refusing to release the testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, and according to Republicans who were present during Atkinson’s closed-door testimony, the reason the transcript hasn’t been released is because it proves both the whistleblower and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff did not tell the truth about their contact with each other.

    Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo interviewed Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) on “Sunday Morning Futures” about the 18th transcript the Democrats are refusing to release. Rep. Ratcliffe was there for Inspector General Michael Atkinson’s testimony and says the transcript is damaging to Chairman Adam Schiff and the whistleblower.

    “The House managers kept putting up charts talking about the 17 witnesses,” Ratcliffe began. “But there were 18 … I was there. It’s the one transcript out of 18 that hasn’t been released. It’s a 179-page transcript … It’s the one transcript that talks about Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Now, everyone knows by now that Adam Schiff was not truthful about his contacts with the whistleblower. What they don’t know and what’s in that transcript is that the whistleblower wasn’t truthful about his contacts with Adam Schiff. This whole thing started, Maria, when the whistleblower filed a complaint with the inspector general under penalty of perjury that wasn’t true and correct, made representations in writing and verbally that weren’t true and correct. And when we found that out and tried to get into the details of that, Adam Schiff, who was in charge of this investigation, shut it down, and now he’s trying to bury that transcript.”

    Bartiromo noted that it wasn’t the first time Chairman Adam Schiff has withheld exculpatory evidence. Despite looking at the same evidence as Chairman Schiff, Rep. Ratcliffe and former Rep. Trey Gowdy both saw abuses in the FISA warrant process used against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, something that has since been confirmed by Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigation. At the time, Adam Schiff denied any abuses in the FISA process and accused Republicans and the president of lying. ”


    But old Adam is projecting again.


  26. https://www.foxnews.com/media/chris-wallace-john-bolton-claim-trump-spinning


    Chris Wallace: Bombshell claim by John Bolton has Trump defenders ‘spinning like crazy’

    The reported bombshell claim by former National Security Adviser John Bolton has left President Trump’s defenders “spinning like crazy” and likely triggered a “furious” response by Senate Republicans toward the White House, “Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace said Monday.

    Appearing on Fox News’ live coverage of the Senate impeachment trial, Wallace told anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum that he does not agree with the Trump team’s attempts to downplay the New York Times report. In his forthcoming book, Bolton reportedly claims that Trump explicitly linked a hold on Ukraine aid to an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.

    “If you want a sense of how big the news is that we’ve heard in the last 12 or 14 hours, just listen to the Trump supporters, like Congressman Lee Zeldin and others, spinning like crazy. You get a sense that this is really an important development in this case,” said Wallace. …

    … Wallace said the impeachment trial previously appeared to be heading toward an acquittal later this week, with the Democrats’ calls for additional witnesses seeming to be “petering out.”

    But he said the Bolton news may have changed the trajectory, possibly pushing a sufficient number of Republican senators to agree with Democrats that Bolton’s testimony is needed. He also said many Senate Republicans are likely “furious” at the White House and feel blindsided by the news.

    “It seems to me that it’s going to be awfully hard for those Republican senators in the middle, maybe even some more senators than that, to now vote against witnesses … ”


  27. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story …

    Newswise, bring on the witnesses will most likely be the upshot of all of this.


  28. Wallace doesn’t agree with Trump?

    Stop the presses……


    And since when is stating the facts “spinning”? Wallace wants the circus, just like the rest of the media. They have a vested interest. Without this farce, they might have to do some real reporting, for a change.


    As for Romney…..



  29. Former NSC chief of staff Fred Fleitz calls on his ‘friend and former boss’ John Bolton to withdraw [his book] from the publisher immediately’

    It smells like a set-up, because it IS a set-up.

    And they knew that. Duh, that’s the whole point here.



  30. So if we’re using the Chris Wallace Guide to Journalistic Lingo, this is spinning.

    Facts as spin. Talk about jumping the shark.


    “Presidents must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them. A book by a former national security adviser ahead of a president’s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters.

    I haven’t seen Bolton’s book manuscript and I don’t know what’s in it. I take Bolton and his staff at their word that they did not leak the manuscript to the New York Times. But I believe they are still responsible for this leak since Bolton’s explosive book was sent to the leak-prone National Security Council for a security review in December 2019 so the book could be published in the spring of 2020. It also is inexplicable how such a sensitive manuscript could be sent to the NSC in the middle of the impeachment process. Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain.

    If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all, this should happen after the election, not in the spring of 2020. I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country. There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election.”


  31. Sent to the leak-prone National Security Council for a security review by Vindman’s twin brother……

    Fixed it for ’em.


  32. Spin? No, facts.

    And let’s stop pretending we have no idea who the leaker could possibly be. It was the Bolton camp, or Vindman’s twin.



  33. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-impeachment-trial


    Impeachment Trial More Likely to See Witnesses After Bolton Allegations

    Some Republican senators say manuscript bolsters case for further testimony

    WASHINGTON—The likelihood of the Senate voting to call more witnesses in the impeachment trial appeared to mount on Monday as some Republican senators said new allegations about President Trump’s motivation for freezing aid to Ukraine bolstered the case for further testimony.

    The comments from some lawmakers—which followed the leak of a manuscript by former national security adviser John Bolton —marked a shift from the weekend, when it looked likely that a vote on whether to call witnesses would fail. …


  34. Facts, not spin.



  35. https://www.wsj.com/articles/legal-fight-over-bolton-testimony-would-enter-uncharted-territory-11580157877

    Analysis: Legal Fight Over Bolton Testimony Would Enter Uncharted Territory

    A brewing fight over whether to call John Bolton as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump could plunge Congress and the White House into uncharted territory, with almost no precedent to guide whether a senior government official can be muzzled in a trial of his former boss. …


  36. ———


  37. 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.