talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--How Could GOP Senators Possibly Be ‘Blindsided’ Over Bolton Testimony?

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton ’ s testimony is now at the center of the impeachment trial , with a slew of GOP senators suddenly expressing shock at what the longtime diplomat is set to reveal in a memoir about his time in the White House .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) said that “ at this stage it ’ s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony , ” while Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) added that “ reports about John Bolton ’ s book strengthen the case for witnesses.
” Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been “ blindsided ” by Bolton ’ s testimony , and reportedly called the White House in a fury , demanding to know why they hadn ’ t been appraised of what the former national security advisor had to say beforehand .
But here ’ s the problem : we ’ ve known for a long , long time that Bolton was an important witness with extremely relevant testimony , thanks to the testimony of his aides and numerous documents created over the summer .
And the specific revelation that Bolton was present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand makes great copy for the back-flap of an aspiring political bestseller , but it didn ’ t come out of the blue : House Democrats invited Bolton to testify on precisely that issue in November , and Republican senators have been commenting on his absence from the trial for weeks .
But that hasn ’ t stopped them from proclaiming shock .
Their request came after a slew of Bolton aides testified that the mustachioed hawk had been present at various points where the hold on military aid to Ukraine was discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffer Fiona Hill — had also testified that Bolton raised alarms about and even tried to stop the pressure campaign from going forward , making his testimony potentially important to the inquiry .
But Bolton ’ s testimony was only ever important , and never vital , precisely because so many people around him and so many documents supported the conclusion that President Trump had personally led the scheme to withhold military aid in exchange for Ukraine announcing investigations .
The July 10 White House meeting with Ukrainian officials that Bolton purportedly cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prospect of “ investigations ” has been known about since October , and his description of the pressure campaign as a “ drug deal ” long ago entered the public lexicon .
But , for argument ’ s sake , let ’ s say that senators aren ’ t arguing that the content of Bolton ’ s testimony changes the game .
Let ’ s say , instead , that they ’ re referring to his willingness to testify .
After all , the House elected not to pursue his testimony after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deposition .
But even Bolton potentially testifying before the Senate comes as no surprise .
The former UN ambassador issued a statement on Jan. 6 saying that if issued a Senate subpoena , he would comply .
It ’ s not fair to imply , however , that Bolton ’ s book contains no new information .
The New York Times piece suggests that the book may reveal that Trump not only may have been demanding that Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election .
Rather , Bolton reportedly understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine .
”

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s testimony is now at the center of the impeachment trial, with a slew of GOP senators suddenly expressing shock at what the longtime diplomat is set to reveal in a memoir about his time in the White House.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) said that “at this stage it’s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony,” while Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) added that “reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses.”
Other, unnamed GOP senators claimed to have been “blindsided” by Bolton’s testimony, and reportedly called the White House in a fury, demanding to know why they hadn’t been appraised of what the former national security advisor had to say beforehand.
But here’s the problem: we’ve known for a long, long time that Bolton was an important witness with extremely relevant testimony, thanks to the testimony of his aides and numerous documents created over the summer.
And the specific revelation that Bolton was present as Trump tied Ukraine aid to his demand makes great copy for the back-flap of an aspiring political bestseller, but it didn’t come out of the blue: House Democrats invited Bolton to testify on precisely that issue in November, and Republican senators have been commenting on his absence from the trial for weeks.
But that hasn’t stopped them from proclaiming shock.
House Democrats asked Bolton to testify on Nov. 7.
Their request came after a slew of Bolton aides testified that the mustachioed hawk had been present at various points where the hold on military aid to Ukraine was discussed.
His aides — including NSC Russia staffer Fiona Hill — had also testified that Bolton raised alarms about and even tried to stop the pressure campaign from going forward, making his testimony potentially important to the inquiry.
But Bolton’s testimony was only ever important, and never vital, precisely because so many people around him and so many documents supported the conclusion that President Trump had personally led the scheme to withhold military aid in exchange for Ukraine announcing investigations.
The July 10 White House meeting with Ukrainian officials that Bolton purportedly cut short because EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland raised the prospect of “investigations” has been known about since October, and his description of the pressure campaign as a “drug deal” long ago entered the public lexicon.
But, for argument’s sake, let’s say that senators aren’t arguing that the content of Bolton’s testimony changes the game. Let’s say, instead, that they’re referring to his willingness to testify. After all, the House elected not to pursue his testimony after he declined to appear at a voluntary deposition.
But even Bolton potentially testifying before the Senate comes as no surprise.
The former UN ambassador issued a statement on Jan. 6 saying that if issued a Senate subpoena, he would comply.
It’s not fair to imply, however, that Bolton’s book contains no new information.
The New York Times piece suggests that the book may reveal that Trump not only may have been demanding that Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election.
Rather, Bolton reportedly understood Trump to mean that “he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.”
Now that’s a potentially shocking revelation.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--Bolton Book Reportedly Contradicts DOJ Claims About Barr’s Knowledge Of Trump-Zelensky Call

Things just got stickier for Attorney General William Barr .
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s book manuscript appears to contradict Justice Department assertions about how and when Barr first learned that President Donald Trump mentioned him on a now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
The New York Times first reported on Bolton ’ s book Sunday , including the startling new claim that Bolton told Barr that Trump had mentioned him during the call .
During the conversation , Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Trump ’ s political rivals and told him , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Attorney General Barr to call.
” According to statements by the Justice Department and previous reporting from the New York Times , Barr only found out about the call in mid-August , when a CIA officer ’ s whistleblower ’ s complaint about it reached the Justice Department for a potential criminal referral .
Bolton reportedly claims in his book that he raised concerns about Rudy Giuliani ’ s shadow foreign policy with Barr after the President ’ s July phone call , and that he told Barr Trump had mentioned him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Times reporter Michael Schmidt — one of the reporters who broke the news about Bolton ’ s book — described Bolton as telling Barr about the call “ right after ” it occurred .
That directly conflicts with what the Justice Department has said about Barr ’ s knowledge of the call .
A Barr spokesperson denied to the Times that he learned about the call from Bolton .
On Sept. 25 , the same day the White House released its record of the call after news of it became public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement : “ The Attorney General was first notified of the President ’ s conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky several weeks after the call took place , when the Department of Justice learned of a potential referral.
” The statement flatly denied that Trump had spoken to Barr “ about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son , ” which was seen at the time as a potential effort to distance the Justice Department from Trump ’ s behavior on the call with Zelensky .
Kupec @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ determined in August that Trump ’ s actions on the call with Zelensky did not violate campaign finance law .
The New York Times reported on Sept. 26 , citing multiple unnamed people familiar with the events , that Barr learned of the call after CIA general counsel Courtney Simmons Elwood informed the White House about it , and after lower-level DOJ officials had been looped in .
Sunday ’ s Times report on Bolton ’ s book appears to undercut that version of events .
Also in August , the intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblower ’ s complaint about Trump ’ s call and submitted it for review to Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire .
Maguire went to the Justice Department with the complaint , asking if it detailed an “ urgent concern ” that he was required to transmit to Congress .
In a Sept. 3 opinion , the DOJ ’ s Office of Legal Counsel determined the complaint wasn ’ t urgent — and therefore that it could be kept under wraps .
Had the story ended there — had Atkinson not complained to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump may not have faced an impeachment inquiry and trial in the first place .
The news that Bolton ’ s first-hand account contradicts the Justice Department ’ s claims about the timeline of these events could amplify calls for Barr to testify and share documents about what he knew , and when .
Kupec did not respond to TPM ’ s request for comment .

Things just got stickier for Attorney General William Barr.
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript appears to contradict Justice Department assertions about how and when Barr first learned that President Donald Trump mentioned him on a now-infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The New York Times first reported on Bolton’s book Sunday, including the startling new claim that Bolton told Barr that Trump had mentioned him during the call. During the conversation, Trump pressured Zelensky to investigate Trump’s political rivals and told him, “I will tell Rudy [Giuliani] and Attorney General Barr to call.”
According to statements by the Justice Department and previous reporting from the New York Times, Barr only found out about the call in mid-August, when a CIA officer’s whistleblower’s complaint about it reached the Justice Department for a potential criminal referral.
But Bolton’s assertion contradicts that timeline.
Bolton reportedly claims in his book that he raised concerns about Rudy Giuliani’s shadow foreign policy with Barr after the President’s July phone call, and that he told Barr Trump had mentioned him on the call. On Monday, the Times reporter Michael Schmidt — one of the reporters who broke the news about Bolton’s book — described Bolton as telling Barr about the call “right after” it occurred.
That directly conflicts with what the Justice Department has said about Barr’s knowledge of the call. A Barr spokesperson denied to the Times that he learned about the call from Bolton.
On Sept. 25, the same day the White House released its record of the call after news of it became public, Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement: “The Attorney General was first notified of the President’s conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky several weeks after the call took place, when the Department of Justice learned of a potential referral.”
The statement flatly denied that Trump had spoken to Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son,” which was seen at the time as a potential effort to distance the Justice Department from Trump’s behavior on the call with Zelensky.
Kupec also claimed on Sept. 25 that the DOJ determined in August that Trump’s actions on the call with Zelensky did not violate campaign finance law.
The New York Times reported on Sept. 26, citing multiple unnamed people familiar with the events, that Barr learned of the call after CIA general counsel Courtney Simmons Elwood informed the White House about it, and after lower-level DOJ officials had been looped in.
Sunday’s Times report on Bolton’s book appears to undercut that version of events.
Also in August, the intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson received the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s call and submitted it for review to Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. Maguire went to the Justice Department with the complaint, asking if it detailed an “urgent concern” that he was required to transmit to Congress.
In a Sept. 3 opinion, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel determined the complaint wasn’t urgent — and therefore that it could be kept under wraps.
Had the story ended there — had Atkinson not complained to Congress about Maguire’s actions — Trump may not have faced an impeachment inquiry and trial in the first place.
The news that Bolton’s first-hand account contradicts the Justice Department’s claims about the timeline of these events could amplify calls for Barr to testify and share documents about what he knew, and when. Kupec did not respond to TPM’s request for comment.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--Bolton Book Reveal Seems To Sway Some GOP Senators On Witnesses

An episode in former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s unpublished manuscript seems to be swaying at least a couple moderate Republicans to call for witnesses ’ inclusion in the Senate impeachment trial .
Bolton wrote of a meeting with President Donald Trump last August , where the President directly tied the Ukraine financial aid to investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton .
Trump has denied that he ever made such comments .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) led the charge Monday morning , saying that it seems “ increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear from Bolton .
“ It ’ s increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton , ” Romney added .
“ I , of course , will make a final decision on witnesses after we have heard from not only the prosecution but also the defense .
But I think at this stage it ’ s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony.
” Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) chimed in with her own statement , saying that the revelation “ strengthened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it “ prompted a number of conversations ” with her peers .
On the other side of the aisle , Sen. Doug Jones ( D-AL ) , who has been more decisive about the need for witnesses , advocated on CNN for the need for a “ full , fair and complete trial ” after the Bolton revelation .
Whether or not witnesses will be included in the trial has been the biggest unknown variable as the impeachment process unfolds .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) has been advising Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to control , would not help his case .
Democrats have been lobbying for Bolton , among others , to be included in the proceedings for weeks , though they need four Republican votes to get it done .
Witness inclusion has also become one of the primary Democratic talking points as Trump ’ s lawyers hammer that there is no firsthand evidence of Trump ’ s wrongdoing from the House ’ s inquiry .
Of course , that ’ s because a hostile White House and ignored subpoenas let the biggest players @ @ @ @ @

An episode in former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript seems to be swaying at least a couple moderate Republicans to call for witnesses’ inclusion in the Senate impeachment trial.
Bolton wrote of a meeting with President Donald Trump last August, where the President directly tied the Ukraine financial aid to investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Trump has denied that he ever made such comments.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) led the charge Monday morning, saying that it seems “increasingly likely” that other Republicans will want to hear from Bolton.
“It’s increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton,” Romney added. “I, of course, will make a final decision on witnesses after we have heard from not only the prosecution but also the defense. But I think at this stage it’s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony.”
Romney: ‘Increasingly likely’ other Senate Republicans will want to hear from John Bolton pic.twitter.com/uqQBWAqGH9 — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) January 27, 2020
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) chimed in with her own statement, saying that the revelation “strengthened” the case for witnesses and that it “prompted a number of conversations” with her peers.
My statement on Bolton developments. pic.twitter.com/3M59J7suts — Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) January 27, 2020
On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), who has been more decisive about the need for witnesses, advocated on CNN for the need for a “full, fair and complete trial” after the Bolton revelation.
Whether or not witnesses will be included in the trial has been the biggest unknown variable as the impeachment process unfolds. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been advising Trump that witness testimony, unpredictable and hard to control, would not help his case. Democrats have been lobbying for Bolton, among others, to be included in the proceedings for weeks, though they need four Republican votes to get it done.
Witness inclusion has also become one of the primary Democratic talking points as Trump’s lawyers hammer that there is no firsthand evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing from the House’s inquiry. Of course, that’s because a hostile White House and ignored subpoenas let the biggest players avoid the hearings unscathed.
Bolton’s bombshell reveal could alter that calculus.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--McSally Professes Shock At ‘Pearl-Clutching’ After Her Attack On Reporter

Sen. Martha McSally ( R-AZ ) claimed Monday that she was “ taken aback ” by the “ over-the-top pearl-clutching ” that followed her calling CNN ’ s Manu Raju a “ liberal hack ” earlier this month .
“ When did we become allergic to the truth ?
” asked the staunch Trump ally in an Arizona Republic op-ed .
“ I think everyone is pretty aware that Republicans — especially ones who work with President Trump to make a difference — are covered by reporters and most media outlets a certain way , and Democrats and Republicans who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a totally different way.
” She went on to claim that the media is biased in favor of Democrats , and that seemingly all reporting is accordingly slanted against the President .
She promised more “ towel-snapping ” at reporters in the future .
Immediately after her attack on Raju , which was recorded by her staff , McSally began cashing in .
A video of the exchange appeared on McSally ’ s Twitter feed within the hour .
Her campaign also immediately bought the domain name LiberalHack.com and started marketing on-theme merchandise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account bolstered the recorded exchange and blasted out a link for donations to McSally ’ s reelection effort .
McSally appeared on Fox News that night to rehash the moment with host Laura Ingraham and proudly announce her lack of regret over the insult .
The question from Raju that prompted McSally ’ s insult and fundraising blitz was fairly straightforward : whether she would consider new evidence after hundreds of pages of messages from Lev Parnas ’ iPhone were released by congressional investigators .
McSally seems to be stepping up the aggression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough election fight .
It seems probable that she ’ ll be facing off against Mark Kelly , an astronaut and husband of former congresswoman and shooting survivor Gabby Giffords .
Kelly currently has a significant cash lead .
McSally was appointed to her seat by Arizona Gov .
Doug Ducey ( R ) after the death of Sen. John McCain ( R-AZ ) .
She initially lost her bid for Arizona ’ s other Senate seat to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema ( D-AZ ) in 2018 .

Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) claimed Monday that she was “taken aback” by the “over-the-top pearl-clutching” that followed her calling CNN’s Manu Raju a “liberal hack” earlier this month.
“When did we become allergic to the truth?” asked the staunch Trump ally in an Arizona Republic op-ed. “I think everyone is pretty aware that Republicans — especially ones who work with President Trump to make a difference — are covered by reporters and most media outlets a certain way, and Democrats and Republicans who don’t like Trump are covered a totally different way.”
She went on to claim that the media is biased in favor of Democrats, and that seemingly all reporting is accordingly slanted against the President.
She promised more “towel-snapping” at reporters in the future.
Immediately after her attack on Raju, which was recorded by her staff, McSally began cashing in. A video of the exchange appeared on McSally’s Twitter feed within the hour. Her campaign also immediately bought the domain name LiberalHack.com and started marketing on-theme merchandise.
NEW SHIRT!! ? I’m in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans, not play politics and games with the liberal hacks of the left-wing media! https://t.co/tNbKJa49JN — McSally For Senate (@MarthaMcSally) January 17, 2020
President Donald Trump’s campaign account bolstered the recorded exchange and blasted out a link for donations to McSally’s reelection effort.
McSally appeared on Fox News that night to rehash the moment with host Laura Ingraham and proudly announce her lack of regret over the insult.
The question from Raju that prompted McSally’s insult and fundraising blitz was fairly straightforward: whether she would consider new evidence after hundreds of pages of messages from Lev Parnas’ iPhone were released by congressional investigators.
McSally seems to be stepping up the aggression as she heads into a likely very tough election fight. It seems probable that she’ll be facing off against Mark Kelly, an astronaut and husband of former congresswoman and shooting survivor Gabby Giffords. Kelly currently has a significant cash lead.
McSally was appointed to her seat by Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) after the death of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). She initially lost her bid for Arizona’s other Senate seat to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) in 2018.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--Romney Says It’s ‘Increasingly Important’ For Senate To Hear From Bolton

Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) , who is among a handful of Republicans who could cast a deciding vote to hear witnesses in the impeachment trial , said Monday that it ’ s “ increasingly important ” for the Senate to hear from John Bolton .
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill , Romney said that he would “ make a final decision on witnesses ” after hearing from the prosecution and the defense .
“ It ’ s increasingly apparent it would be important to hear from John Bolton , ” Romney said .
“ I , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on witnesses after we have heard from not only the prosecution but also the defense.
” Romney added that Bolton has a “ relevant testimony ” and that he won ’ t be the only Republican who thinks Bolton should testify .
“ But I think at this stage it ’ s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony , ” Romney said .
“ I think it ’ s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heels of the New York Times ’ report of an unpublished manuscript by Bolton saying that Trump wanted to freeze Ukraine military aide until the Ukrainian government helped dig up false allegations against the Bidens .
On the first day of the Senate impeachment trial last Tuesday , Senate Republicans voted down a series of amendments that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats put forth to subpoena documents and witnesses such as Bolton and other Trump administration officials .
Earlier this month , Bolton announced that he will testify in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoenaed .
Although his book isn ’ t scheduled to be released until March , Bolton ’ s potential testimony has taken center stage in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial as reports about his book broke .
On Monday morning , Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) — who is also among the group of Republicans who could cast a deciding vote on witnesses — said in a statement that “ reports about John Bolton ’ s book strengthen the case for witnesses .
”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who is among a handful of Republicans who could cast a deciding vote to hear witnesses in the impeachment trial, said Monday that it’s “increasingly important” for the Senate to hear from John Bolton.
Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Romney said that he would “make a final decision on witnesses” after hearing from the prosecution and the defense.
“It’s increasingly apparent it would be important to hear from John Bolton,” Romney said. “I, of course, will make a final decision on witnesses after we have heard from not only the prosecution but also the defense.”
Romney added that Bolton has a “relevant testimony” and that he won’t be the only Republican who thinks Bolton should testify.
“But I think at this stage it’s pretty fair to say that John Bolton has a relevant testimony,” Romney said. “I think it’s increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton.”
Romney’s remarks come on the heels of the New York Times’ report of an unpublished manuscript by Bolton saying that Trump wanted to freeze Ukraine military aide until the Ukrainian government helped dig up false allegations against the Bidens.
On the first day of the Senate impeachment trial last Tuesday, Senate Republicans voted down a series of amendments that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats put forth to subpoena documents and witnesses such as Bolton and other Trump administration officials.
Earlier this month, Bolton announced that he will testify in the Senate impeachment trial if he’s subpoenaed.
Although his book isn’t scheduled to be released until March, Bolton’s potential testimony has taken center stage in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial as reports about his book broke.
On Monday morning, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) — who is also among the group of Republicans who could cast a deciding vote on witnesses — said in a statement that “reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses.”
My statement on Bolton developments. pic.twitter.com/3M59J7suts — Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) January 27, 2020
Watch Romney’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--Schiff Says GOP Senators Are ‘Now Really Hard-Pressed’ To Reject Bolton Testimony

House impeachment manager Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) said on Monday morning that Republican senators are in a bind after the New York Times published allegations of former National Security Adviser ’ s book , which gave a firsthand account of President Donald Trump ’ s involvement in the pressure campaign on Ukraine .
“ At the end of the day , Alisyn , this the test for these senators , ” Schiff told CNN ’ s “ New Day ” anchor Alisyn Camerota .
“ They ’ ve taken an oath to be impartial .
They ’ ve just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to the heart of the allegations.
” “ The question they have to answer is : Do they want to hear the truth ?
Do they want to cross-examination John Bolton ?
” the Democratic lawmaker continued .
Schiff said that he and the rest of the Democrats will push Republicans to allow testimony from Bolton , who has offered to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if the chamber issued a subpoena .
“ And I think all the senators are now really hard-pressed to turn him away , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , Bolton wrote that Trump had told him he wanted to withhold the congressionally approved aid until Ukraine had given him materials on their Russia investigation as it related to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton .
Republican senators have voted to shoot down Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ’ s ( D-NY ) attempts to allow Bolton and other top Trump administration officials to testify .
However , GOP sources told Politico and Axios that Bolton ’ s bombshell allegations may have thrown the senators ’ resistance against witnesses into question .

House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) said on Monday morning that Republican senators are in a bind after the New York Times published allegations of former National Security Adviser’s book, which gave a firsthand account of President Donald Trump’s involvement in the pressure campaign on Ukraine.
“At the end of the day, Alisyn, this the test for these senators,” Schiff told CNN’s “New Day” anchor Alisyn Camerota. “They’ve taken an oath to be impartial. They’ve just learned there’s a key witness going to the heart of the allegations.”
“The question they have to answer is: Do they want to hear the truth? Do they want to cross-examination John Bolton?” the Democratic lawmaker continued.
Schiff said that he and the rest of the Democrats will push Republicans to allow testimony from Bolton, who has offered to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if the chamber issued a subpoena.
“And I think all the senators are now really hard-pressed to turn him away,” the impeachment manager added.
According to the Times, Bolton wrote that Trump had told him he wanted to withhold the congressionally approved aid until Ukraine had given him materials on their Russia investigation as it related to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
Republican senators have voted to shoot down Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) attempts to allow Bolton and other top Trump administration officials to testify. However, GOP sources told Politico and Axios that Bolton’s bombshell allegations may have thrown the senators’ resistance against witnesses into question.
Watch Schiff below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--Third Woman Accuses Lucido Of Sexual Harassment, Exposes Pattern Of Behavior

Melissa Osborn , an employee at the Michigan Credit Union League , is now the third woman to go public with accusations of unwanted touching or inappropriate comments from state Sen. Peter Lucido ( R ) .
According to Crain ’ s Detroit Business , Osborn described an interaction at a government affairs conference last May when Lucido grabbed her lower back while looking her up and down and commenting on how good her dress looked on her .
Osborn ’ s account is eerily similar to state Sen. Mallory McMorrow ’ s ( D ) , one of Lucido @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he similarly touched her lower back while observing her body and making crude insinuations about her 2018 electoral victory .
Michigan Advance reporter Allison Donahue opened the floodgates of accusations in recent weeks , publishing a first-person account of an interaction with Lucido when she tried to interview him for a story .
Instead , she recalls that he made a lewd comment about how a crowd of high school boys he was with could “ have some fun ” with her .
The first two accusations already had been referred to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McMorrow reportedly said that a fourth woman came to her with similar allegations as well , and that she reported that one and Osborn ’ s to the SBO .
“ I feel like there ’ s this idea that if you ’ re a person in a position of power , that you ’ re untouchable , ” McMorrow told Crain ’ s , adding that she says a “ pattern ” of behavior in Lucido ’ s feeling an entitlement to women ’ s bodies .
“ That ’ s compounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe district , you ’ re in the majority party and you ’ ve built this caricature around you .
”

Melissa Osborn, an employee at the Michigan Credit Union League, is now the third woman to go public with accusations of unwanted touching or inappropriate comments from state Sen. Peter Lucido (R).
According to Crain’s Detroit Business, Osborn described an interaction at a government affairs conference last May when Lucido grabbed her lower back while looking her up and down and commenting on how good her dress looked on her.
Osborn’s account is eerily similar to state Sen. Mallory McMorrow’s (D), one of Lucido’s peers, who alleged that he similarly touched her lower back while observing her body and making crude insinuations about her 2018 electoral victory.
Michigan Advance reporter Allison Donahue opened the floodgates of accusations in recent weeks, publishing a first-person account of an interaction with Lucido when she tried to interview him for a story. Instead, she recalls that he made a lewd comment about how a crowd of high school boys he was with could “have some fun” with her.
The first two accusations already had been referred to the Senate Business Office for an investigation. McMorrow reportedly said that a fourth woman came to her with similar allegations as well, and that she reported that one and Osborn’s to the SBO.
“I feel like there’s this idea that if you’re a person in a position of power, that you’re untouchable,” McMorrow told Crain’s, adding that she says a “pattern” of behavior in Lucido’s feeling an entitlement to women’s bodies. “That’s compounded by if you’re in a safe district, you’re in the majority party and you’ve built this caricature around you.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--Reports: GOP Senators Shaken By Bolton Allegations Of Trump’s Ukraine Scheme

Republican senators , who have refused to allow witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump thus far , are reportedly shaken in their resolve after the New York Times published claims from an unpublished manuscript of Bolton ’ s book , which contains explosive accounts of Trump ’ s direct involvement in the Ukraine scheme .
Politico reported on Monday morning that its Republican sources believe the situation may have shifted following Bolton ’ s allegation that Trump told him $ 391 million in military aid to Ukraine was incumbent upon Ukraine ’ s assistance with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sources told Politico that Republican senators will plan their next move during its conference lunch on Monday .
Unnamed GOP sources also told Axios that there ’ s a possibility four Republican senators may break from the Senate GOP caucus ’ stonewalling of witnesses in the trial in wake of the manuscript .
Democrats need four GOP defections to successfully bring in crucial witnesses , such as Bolton .
Axios ’ sources also said that the White House and GOP leaders will continue fight against having Bolton testify for fear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floodgates are open ” and that Democrats ’ push for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting White House Chief of Staff to testify will “ intensify ” if Bolton ’ s testimony ties the two administration officials to Trump ’ s Ukraine scheme .

Republican senators, who have refused to allow witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump thus far, are reportedly shaken in their resolve after the New York Times published claims from an unpublished manuscript of Bolton’s book, which contains explosive accounts of Trump’s direct involvement in the Ukraine scheme.
Politico reported on Monday morning that its Republican sources believe the situation may have shifted following Bolton’s allegation that Trump told him $391 million in military aid to Ukraine was incumbent upon Ukraine’s assistance with his desired investigation into 2020 candidate Joe Biden.
The sources told Politico that Republican senators will plan their next move during its conference lunch on Monday.
Unnamed GOP sources also told Axios that there’s a possibility four Republican senators may break from the Senate GOP caucus’ stonewalling of witnesses in the trial in wake of the manuscript. Democrats need four GOP defections to successfully bring in crucial witnesses, such as Bolton.
Axios’ sources also said that the White House and GOP leaders will continue fight against having Bolton testify for fear that “if one witness is allowed, the floodgates are open” and that Democrats’ push for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting White House Chief of Staff to testify will “intensify” if Bolton’s testimony ties the two administration officials to Trump’s Ukraine scheme.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-27--Bolton’s Book Ties Ukraine Aid To Biden Probe. Trump Howls Explosive Allegation Isn’t True.

On early Monday morning , President Donald Trump denied former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s bombshell allegation that he directly connected aid to Ukraine to his push for Ukrainian officials to help his efforts to have Joe Biden investigated .
According to an unpublished manuscript of Bolton ’ s upcoming book obtained by the New York Times , Trump told Bolton last August that he would not release the $ 391 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukrainian government officials had given him , in the Times ’ words , “ all materials they had about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hillary Clinton .
Trump vehemently denied Bolton ’ s account after the Times published its report .
“ I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats , including the Bidens , ” Trump tweeted shortly after midnight .
“ 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.
” Trump claimed the White House ’ s memo of his call with Ukrainian President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proof that is needed.
” Bolton ’ s manuscript included explosive accounts of other Trump administration officials ’ involvement or knowledge of the scheme , such as his allegation that he had told Attorney General Bill Barr he was concerned about Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani ’ s operations in Ukraine .
Bolton also wrote that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo privately admitted Giuliani ’ s smears of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch were groundless , according to the Times .
Pompeo also believed Giuliani ’ s mudslinging was for the benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ex-national security adviser .
Additionally , Bolton alleged that acting White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney was present during at least one of Trump ’ s calls with Giuliani in which they discussed Yovanovitch .
Charles J. Cooper , Bolton ’ s lawyer , told the Times that he had given the White House a copy of the book on December 30 to ensure it did not contain classified information .
He said the review process had been “ corrupted ” by whoever had leaked the manuscript to the outlet .
Bolton said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of Trump if he were subpoenaed .
However , Senate Republicans have rejected Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ’ s ( D-NY ) efforts to include new witnesses and documents in the trial , which began last week .
Schumer seized on the Times ’ report , emphasizing the importance of having Bolton and other top administration officials testify .
“ John Bolton has the evidence , ” Schumer tweeted on Sunday evening .
“ It ’ s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the others with direct knowledge of President Trump ’ s actions testify in the Senate trial.
” The House impeachment managers and Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) said Bolton ’ s account “ confirms what we already know.
” “ There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President ’ s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump , ” they said in a statement .

On early Monday morning, President Donald Trump denied former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s bombshell allegation that he directly connected aid to Ukraine to his push for Ukrainian officials to help his efforts to have Joe Biden investigated.
According to an unpublished manuscript of Bolton’s upcoming book obtained by the New York Times, Trump told Bolton last August that he would not release the $391 million in military aid to Ukraine until Ukrainian government officials had given him, in the Times’ words, “all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to” Biden and Hillary Clinton.
Trump vehemently denied Bolton’s account after the Times published its report.
“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Trump tweeted shortly after midnight. “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.”
Trump claimed the White House’s memo of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky in July is “all the proof that is needed.”
Bolton’s manuscript included explosive accounts of other Trump administration officials’ involvement or knowledge of the scheme, such as his allegation that he had told Attorney General Bill Barr he was concerned about Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s operations in Ukraine.
Bolton also wrote that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo privately admitted Giuliani’s smears of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch were groundless, according to the Times.
Pompeo also believed Giuliani’s mudslinging was for the benefit of his clients, according to the ex-national security adviser.
Additionally, Bolton alleged that acting White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney was present during at least one of Trump’s calls with Giuliani in which they discussed Yovanovitch.
Charles J. Cooper, Bolton’s lawyer, told the Times that he had given the White House a copy of the book on December 30 to ensure it did not contain classified information. He said the review process had been “corrupted” by whoever had leaked the manuscript to the outlet.
Bolton said in early January that he would agree to testify in the Senate impeachment trial of Trump if he were subpoenaed. However, Senate Republicans have rejected Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) efforts to include new witnesses and documents in the trial, which began last week.
Schumer seized on the Times’ report, emphasizing the importance of having Bolton and other top administration officials testify.
“John Bolton has the evidence,” Schumer tweeted on Sunday evening. “It’s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump’s actions testify in the Senate trial.”
The House impeachment managers and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Bolton’s account “confirms what we already know.”
“There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump,” they said in a statement.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--Bolton Told Barr He Was Worried Trump Was Doing Favors For Xi And Erdogan, Book Reportedly Says

Former National Security adviser John Bolton last year reportedly expressed his concern to Attorney General Bill Barr that the President was effectively doing favors for the leaders of two foreign countries .
In response , Barr reportedly expressed his own concerns — specifically , that Trump had made it look as if he had an undue influence over independent investigations that affected the two countries in question , China and Turkey .
The New York Times on Monday reported the discussion , which the paper said was contained in a draft manuscript of an upcoming book from Bolton .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday , Bolton said that president Donald Trump had explicitly tied aid that he was withholding to political dirt he wanted from Ukraine — an issue at the center of the current impeachment trial against Trump .
A draft of the book was submitted to the White House for security review last month .
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment for the story , the Times said .
According to Bolton ’ s manuscript , Barr reportedly expressed concerns to Bolton about the Chinese telecom firm ZTE , and specifically about Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jinping about the firm .
In 2016 , the Department of Commerce found that the company had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea .
The firm agreed to plead guilt and pay a fine for the violation the next year , and in 2018 Trump lifted sanctions that had been in place against ZTE , despite the protestation of many in Congress .
According to the Times , Barr also cited his concerns over Trump ’ s conversations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2018 about Halkbank .
The state-owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for fraud and money laundering , part of an alleged scheme to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions .
Ultimately , the bank was charged in October in the Southern District of New York .

Former National Security adviser John Bolton last year reportedly expressed his concern to Attorney General Bill Barr that the President was effectively doing favors for the leaders of two foreign countries.
In response, Barr reportedly expressed his own concerns — specifically, that Trump had made it look as if he had an undue influence over independent investigations that affected the two countries in question, China and Turkey.
The New York Times on Monday reported the discussion, which the paper said was contained in a draft manuscript of an upcoming book from Bolton.
In the same manuscript, the Times reported Sunday, Bolton said that president Donald Trump had explicitly tied aid that he was withholding to political dirt he wanted from Ukraine — an issue at the center of the current impeachment trial against Trump. A draft of the book was submitted to the White House for security review last month.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment for the story, the Times said.
According to Bolton’s manuscript, Barr reportedly expressed concerns to Bolton about the Chinese telecom firm ZTE, and specifically about Trump’s conversations with Chinese President Xi Jinping about the firm.
In 2016, the Department of Commerce found that the company had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea. The firm agreed to plead guilt and pay a fine for the violation the next year, and in 2018 Trump lifted sanctions that had been in place against ZTE, despite the protestation of many in Congress.
According to the Times, Barr also cited his concerns over Trump’s conversations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2018 about Halkbank.
The state-owned bank was under investigation at the time for fraud and money laundering, part of an alleged scheme to help Iran evade U.S. sanctions. Ultimately, the bank was charged in October in the Southern District of New York.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--The Strangely Long List Of Obscure Names Dropped By Trump Lawyer Robert Ray

WASHINGTON , DC - JANUARY 27 : In this screenshot taken from a Senate Television webcast , Legal Counsel for @ @ @ @ @ Ray speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump i ... WASHINGTON , DC @ @ @ @ @ this screenshot taken from a Senate Television webcast , Legal Counsel for President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol on @ @ @ @ @ Washington , DC .
Democratic House managers have concluded their opening arguments and President Trump @ @ @ @ @ present their defense .
( Photo by Senate Television via Getty Images )

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 27: In this screenshot taken from a Senate Television webcast, Legal Counsel for President Donald Trump, Robert Ray speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump i...
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 27: In this screenshot taken from a Senate Television webcast, Legal Counsel for President Donald Trump, Robert Ray speaks during impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump in the Senate at the U.S. Capitol on January 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. Democratic House managers have concluded their opening arguments and President Trump's lawyers now continue to present their defense. (Photo by Senate Television via Getty Images)
MORE
LESS


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--Falwell Rallies Rural Virginia Counties To Secede And Join West Virginia

The governor of West Virginia and the president of the Liberty University came together on Tuesday and urged conservative counties and cities in Virginia to leave that state and join its western neighbor .
“ If you ’ re not truly happy where you are , we stand with open arms to take you from Virginia or anywhere you may be , ” Gov .
Jim Justice said .
“ I think it makes sense , ” Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. added later .
“ I would vote for it.
” In a 30-minute press conference on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic wave that swept state government in Virginia , leaving the Republican Party out of power in the governor ’ s mansion and both legislative chambers for the first time in nearly three decades .
The Democrats have pushed a gun reform package that ’ s led to calls in some counties to resist efforts to enforce new gun laws , and to a tense pro-gun rally last week that left the state on edge .
“ Sounds like it ’ s an election year in West Virginia , ” Virginia Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yarmosky told TPM , asked about the Falwell-Justice proposal .
Flanked by gyrating robotic arms at BlueRidge Community and Technical College in Martinsburg , West Virginia , the pair called for local governments in the Virginia to pursue petition drives , get non-binding resolutions on the ballot , and extract their communities from Old Dominion to join the Mountain State — but only after approval from the Virginia General Assembly , an uncertain proposition to say the least .
Kentucky and West Virginia were both once part of Virginia , Falwell noted ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1863 .
He urged Virginians “ to make history in our time by pushing back against tyranny in Washington and in Richmond.
” “ I hope history will also record , one day , how Virginia divided once again in our decade — because the interests of those in Richmond were so divergent from those of us to the west , just as they were for Kentucky and West Virginia , ” Falwell said .
The press conference revealed some confusion about the law .
Falwell admitted he was not aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve the re-drawing of state lines he proposed .
“ We don ’ t know that yet .
Last time it split , we weren ’ t part of the United States , we were part of the Confederate States of America , ” he said .
And Justice , who treated the press conference as a long infomercial for his state , said at one point that the offer to join West Virginia “ extends to Maryland , it extends to California , it extends to anywhere and everywhere !
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia and West Virginia are the only states that have had this historic relationship and this historic fluid border , ” he said .
“ So it might be tougher with other states , I don ’ t know.
” Still , even Falwell ’ s endorsement of redrawing the two states ’ boundaries seemed somewhat rushed .
After all , it was just two weeks ago that several delegates in the West Virginia House introduced a resolution “ for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Virginia.
” The state ’ s Senate heard a similar resolution .
Falwell said he ’ d only “ recently ” learned about the West Virginia resolution from his son , Trey .
And just last Thursday , Liberty University came out against a Northam budget proposal that would block online students from receiving the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant , a state-funded check for enrollees at private institutions that came out to $ 3,400 per undergraduate per year last year , and could rise to $ 4,000 this year .
“ Two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proposal ] are Liberty University online students , ” Falwell n0ted Tuesday , comparing the proposal to the gun legislation and other liberal efforts in Virginia .
( Yarmosky told TPM the program is intended to offset the “ brick and mortar costs associated with attending college.
” ) The press conference , Falwell said Tuesday , was “ all put together on a tight timespan ” after nightly phone calls between himself and the governor “ for at least a week .
”

The governor of West Virginia and the president of the Liberty University came together on Tuesday and urged conservative counties and cities in Virginia to leave that state and join its western neighbor.
“If you’re not truly happy where you are, we stand with open arms to take you from Virginia or anywhere you may be,” Gov. Jim Justice said.
“I think it makes sense,” Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. added later. “I would vote for it.”
In a 30-minute press conference on the issue, the pair cited the recent Democratic wave that swept state government in Virginia, leaving the Republican Party out of power in the governor’s mansion and both legislative chambers for the first time in nearly three decades. The Democrats have pushed a gun reform package that’s led to calls in some counties to resist efforts to enforce new gun laws, and to a tense pro-gun rally last week that left the state on edge.
“Sounds like it’s an election year in West Virginia,” Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s press secretary Alena Yarmosky told TPM, asked about the Falwell-Justice proposal.
Flanked by gyrating robotic arms at BlueRidge Community and Technical College in Martinsburg, West Virginia, the pair called for local governments in the Virginia to pursue petition drives, get non-binding resolutions on the ballot, and extract their communities from Old Dominion to join the Mountain State — but only after approval from the Virginia General Assembly, an uncertain proposition to say the least.
Kentucky and West Virginia were both once part of Virginia, Falwell noted; Kentucky split in 1792 and West Virginia in 1863. He urged Virginians “to make history in our time by pushing back against tyranny in Washington and in Richmond.”
“I hope history will also record, one day, how Virginia divided once again in our decade — because the interests of those in Richmond were so divergent from those of us to the west, just as they were for Kentucky and West Virginia,” Falwell said.
The press conference revealed some confusion about the law. Falwell admitted he was not aware of whether the U.S. Congress would have to approve the re-drawing of state lines he proposed.
“We don’t know that yet. Last time it split, we weren’t part of the United States, we were part of the Confederate States of America,” he said.
And Justice, who treated the press conference as a long infomercial for his state, said at one point that the offer to join West Virginia “extends to Maryland, it extends to California, it extends to anywhere and everywhere!”
Falwell did some quick clean-up work.
“On Maryland — it is true, Virginia and West Virginia are the only states that have had this historic relationship and this historic fluid border,” he said. “So it might be tougher with other states, I don’t know.”
Still, even Falwell’s endorsement of redrawing the two states’ boundaries seemed somewhat rushed.
After all, it was just two weeks ago that several delegates in the West Virginia House introduced a resolution “for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia.” The state’s Senate heard a similar resolution. Falwell said he’d only “recently” learned about the West Virginia resolution from his son, Trey.
And just last Thursday, Liberty University came out against a Northam budget proposal that would block online students from receiving the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant, a state-funded check for enrollees at private institutions that came out to $3,400 per undergraduate per year last year, and could rise to $4,000 this year.
“Two thousand of those students [affected by the proposal] are Liberty University online students,” Falwell n0ted Tuesday, comparing the proposal to the gun legislation and other liberal efforts in Virginia. (Yarmosky told TPM the program is intended to offset the “brick and mortar costs associated with attending college.”)
The press conference, Falwell said Tuesday, was “all put together on a tight timespan” after nightly phone calls between himself and the governor “for at least a week.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--DOJ Position And Trump Impeachment Argument ‘Cannot Be Reconciled,’ House Lawyer Argues

The President just keeps contradicting his own DOJ , the House of Representatives ’ top lawyer said in yet another court filing Tuesday pointing out the Trump administration ’ s clashing positions .
“ [ W ] e write to inform the Court of statements made by President Trump ’ s attorney during the Senate impeachment trial that contradict DOJ ’ s principal argument in this case , ” the House lawyer , Douglas Letter , wrote .
The filing was one in a series of from Letter regarding two cases : One case seeks to force former White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House Judiciary Committee , despite an order from the President ; another seeks grand jury material from the Mueller probe .
The contradiction boils down to this : In the Senate impeachment trial , Trump ’ s defense team has argued against the “ Obstruction of Congress ” charge against him by saying that the courts , not the impeachment process , are the proper venue to pursue witnesses and documentary evidence that Trump has blocked from reaching congressional investigators .
In short , the evidence must be litigated in court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mueller grand jury cases , Justice Department prosecutors have argued for months that the disputes are political — not an appropriate place for the courts to step in .
In short , the evidence can not be litigated in court .
“ The Executive Branch can not have it both ways , ” the Judiciary Committee said in a statement Tuesday .
A similar contradiction is ongoing in another case , as well : Justice Department lawyers argued in a Supreme Court brief Monday that House subpoenas for documents from Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Letter pointed out the familiar pattern in his latest filing on Tuesday , in the Mueller grand jury case .
The President ’ s lawyer Ken Starr asserted during Monday ’ s impeachment proceedings that the Senate was “ not a legislative chamber during these proceedings .
We are in a tribunal .
We are in court , ” Letter pointed out .
Meanwhile , he said , “ DOJ ’ s principal argument in this case is that a Senate impeachment trial is not a ‘ judicial proceeding ’ under Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rule refers to proceedings in court.
” Rule 6 ( e ) says that grand jury material may be shared “ in connection with a judicial proceeding.
” The impeachment trial is such a proceeding , Democrats argue .
The Justice Department has countered that it isn ’ t — even going so far as to say the famous grand jury “ road map ” materials that were crucial to the Nixon impeachment would have been kept from Congress if the dispute over them was retried today .
“ Because DOJ ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconciled with President ’ s position in the impeachment , DOJ may wish to withdraw its argument that a Senate impeachment trial does not qualify as a judicial proceeding , ” Letter concluded .
This post has been updated .

The President just keeps contradicting his own DOJ, the House of Representatives’ top lawyer said in yet another court filing Tuesday pointing out the Trump administration’s clashing positions.
“[W]e write to inform the Court of statements made by President Trump’s attorney during the Senate impeachment trial that contradict DOJ’s principal argument in this case,” the House lawyer, Douglas Letter, wrote.
The filing was one in a series of from Letter regarding two cases: One case seeks to force former White House counsel Don McGahn’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, despite an order from the President; another seeks grand jury material from the Mueller probe.
The contradiction boils down to this: In the Senate impeachment trial, Trump’s defense team has argued against the “Obstruction of Congress” charge against him by saying that the courts, not the impeachment process, are the proper venue to pursue witnesses and documentary evidence that Trump has blocked from reaching congressional investigators. In short, the evidence must be litigated in court.
But in court, in the McGahn and Mueller grand jury cases, Justice Department prosecutors have argued for months that the disputes are political — not an appropriate place for the courts to step in. In short, the evidence cannot be litigated in court.
“The Executive Branch cannot have it both ways,” the Judiciary Committee said in a statement Tuesday.
A similar contradiction is ongoing in another case, as well: Justice Department lawyers argued in a Supreme Court brief Monday that House subpoenas for documents from Trump’s accounting firm and bank are illegitimate.
Letter pointed out the familiar pattern in his latest filing on Tuesday, in the Mueller grand jury case.
The President’s lawyer Ken Starr asserted during Monday’s impeachment proceedings that the Senate was “not a legislative chamber during these proceedings. We are in a tribunal. We are in court,” Letter pointed out.
Meanwhile, he said, “DOJ’s principal argument in this case is that a Senate impeachment trial is not a ‘judicial proceeding’ under Rule 6(e) — because the Rule refers to proceedings in court.”
Rule 6(e) says that grand jury material may be shared “in connection with a judicial proceeding.” The impeachment trial is such a proceeding, Democrats argue. The Justice Department has countered that it isn’t — even going so far as to say the famous grand jury “road map” materials that were crucial to the Nixon impeachment would have been kept from Congress if the dispute over them was retried today.
“Because DOJ’s position in this case cannot be reconciled with President’s position in the impeachment, DOJ may wish to withdraw its argument that a Senate impeachment trial does not qualify as a judicial proceeding,” Letter concluded.
Read Letter’s filing below:
This post has been updated.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--Trump’s Pardoned War Criminal Trashes His Ex-SEAL Teammates As ‘Cowards’

Former U.S. Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher , who was pardoned by President Donald Trump after he was convicted for a war crime , posted videos on social media bashing several members of his former platoon as “ cowards ” and singling them out by name .
In a video hashtagged with # thetruthiscoming on Facebook and Instagram , Gallagher railed against “ all the lies ” that were “ said about me by certain cowards in my platoon.
” “ For those who have and continue to slander my name , the truth is coming , ” he warned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video played clips of seven SEALs speaking to investigators about Gallagher ’ s alleged crimes .
Each clip was followed by the SEAL ’ s full name and position .
Several of the names were slapped with a Trump-esque insults .
Gallagher was charged with several war crimes , then acquitted save for the charge of posing in a photo with a dead ISIS teen fighter , for which Gallagher was convicted .
After Trump pardoned him in November , Gallagher become the center of a feud between the President and then-Navy Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s repeated meddling in Gallagher ’ s case to restore his military rank .

Former U.S. Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was pardoned by President Donald Trump after he was convicted for a war crime, posted videos on social media bashing several members of his former platoon as “cowards” and singling them out by name.
In a video hashtagged with #thetruthiscoming on Facebook and Instagram, Gallagher railed against “all the lies” that were “said about me by certain cowards in my platoon.”
“For those who have and continue to slander my name, the truth is coming,” he warned in a voiceover.
The rest of the video played clips of seven SEALs speaking to investigators about Gallagher’s alleged crimes. Each clip was followed by the SEAL’s full name and position. Several of the names were slapped with a Trump-esque insults.
Gallagher was charged with several war crimes, then acquitted save for the charge of posing in a photo with a dead ISIS teen fighter, for which Gallagher was convicted.
After Trump pardoned him in November, Gallagher become the center of a feud between the President and then-Navy Secretary Richard Spencer that arose from Trump’s repeated meddling in Gallagher’s case to restore his military rank.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--Fruman Demands Parnas Take Back Docs From Congress

Lev Parnas ’ longtime associate wants him to take back documents supplied to Congress , accusing the South Florida businessman of potentially breaking attorney-client privilege .
In a series of letters , Igor Fruman accused Parnas and his attorney Joe Bondy of giving away information potentially protected by Fruman ’ s attorney-client privilege to Congress .
“ Mr .
Parnas did not , and does not , have any authority to waive Mr. Fruman ’ s privilege , or otherwise disclose privileged communications belonging to Mr. Fruman , ” wrote Fruman attorney Todd Blanche in a Jan. 22 letter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bondy ’ s hasty efforts to find a forum ( beyond MSNBC and CNN ) for someone — anyone — to listen to his client ’ s version of events caused him to irresponsibly produce privileged materials to the HPSCI.
” Bondy argued in a separate , January 24 letter that the burden was on Fruman to “ conclusively ” prove the matter .
He added that certain privileges which typically exist in civil and criminal court proceedings “ do not act as a shield for an individual ’ s compliance with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand that Bondy “ claw back ” documents from Congress follows on months in which the President and his allies have made unprecedentedly broad assertions that their documents are shielded from oversight by various privileges .
Parnas and Fruman initially cited some of these privileges in an October 3 letter to Congress , telling the House Intelligence Committee that they would not comply with a subpoena .
John Dowd , an attorney for President Trump , represented the pair in that matter with Trump ’ s approval .
But after the pair ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges , Parnas split off and fired Dowd as his attorney .
Parnas has provided Congress with a steady stream of information collected as discovery in the case in recent weeks , adding striking , detailed new evidence from a central player in the pressure campaign on Ukraine as President Trump goes through an impeachment trial in the Senate over the scandal .
But while Parnas has attempted to try his case in public , Fruman has remained silent .
He has kept Blanche as his attorney , who also represents Paul Manafort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his letter that Fruman ’ s “ interests ” continue to lie with those of President Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani , who directed the pair ’ s work in Ukraine .
“ Mr .
Giuliani and the President have interests divergent from Mr. Parnas ’ s wish to cooperate with Congress and the Government , ” Bondy wrote .
“ Mr .
Parnas believes that his and Mr. Fruman ’ s ostensibly joint representation by Attorneys Dowd and Downing was conflicted and intended from its inception to obstruct the production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawful congressional subpoena.
” Blanche argued in a follow-up response to Bondy , dated January 27 , that he can not assess whether Parnas provided privileged material to Congress without reviewing it himself .
He added that evidence which prosecutors have provided to Fruman has already yielded “ clearly privileged material.
” “ Mr .
Fruman is not the only person whose privileged information is at risk , ” added Blanche .
Blanche wrote that Parnas ’ s work as a “ translator for Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova in connection with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would also be protected .
“ Clearly , any materials Mr. Parnas received as a translator assisting attorneys in the representation of Mr. Firtash would be protected by attorney-client privilege , ” Blanche wrote .
“ And that privilege would be held by Mr. Firtash , the client , not Mr. Parnas.
” Federal prosecutors attempted to have Parnas ’ bail revoked last month in part over allegations that the South Florida businessman lied about a $ 1 million loan he received from Firtash ’ s lawyer in September 2019 .
The judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month .

Lev Parnas’ longtime associate wants him to take back documents supplied to Congress, accusing the South Florida businessman of potentially breaking attorney-client privilege.
In a series of letters, Igor Fruman accused Parnas and his attorney Joe Bondy of giving away information potentially protected by Fruman’s attorney-client privilege to Congress.
“Mr. Parnas did not, and does not, have any authority to waive Mr. Fruman’s privilege, or otherwise disclose privileged communications belonging to Mr. Fruman,” wrote Fruman attorney Todd Blanche in a Jan. 22 letter. “My obvious concern is that Mr. Bondy’s hasty efforts to find a forum (beyond MSNBC and CNN) for someone — anyone — to listen to his client’s version of events caused him to irresponsibly produce privileged materials to the HPSCI.”
Bondy argued in a separate, January 24 letter that the burden was on Fruman to “conclusively” prove the matter. He added that certain privileges which typically exist in civil and criminal court proceedings “do not act as a shield for an individual’s compliance with a congressional committee demand.”
Fruman’s demand that Bondy “claw back” documents from Congress follows on months in which the President and his allies have made unprecedentedly broad assertions that their documents are shielded from oversight by various privileges.
Parnas and Fruman initially cited some of these privileges in an October 3 letter to Congress, telling the House Intelligence Committee that they would not comply with a subpoena. John Dowd, an attorney for President Trump, represented the pair in that matter with Trump’s approval.
But after the pair’s October 2019 indictment on campaign finance charges, Parnas split off and fired Dowd as his attorney.
Parnas has provided Congress with a steady stream of information collected as discovery in the case in recent weeks, adding striking, detailed new evidence from a central player in the pressure campaign on Ukraine as President Trump goes through an impeachment trial in the Senate over the scandal.
But while Parnas has attempted to try his case in public, Fruman has remained silent. He has kept Blanche as his attorney, who also represents Paul Manafort in New York.
Bondy suggested in his letter that Fruman’s “interests” continue to lie with those of President Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who directed the pair’s work in Ukraine.
“Mr. Giuliani and the President have interests divergent from Mr. Parnas’s wish to cooperate with Congress and the Government,” Bondy wrote. “Mr. Parnas believes that his and Mr. Fruman’s ostensibly joint representation by Attorneys Dowd and Downing was conflicted and intended from its inception to obstruct the production of documents and testimony responsive to a lawful congressional subpoena.”
Blanche argued in a follow-up response to Bondy, dated January 27, that he cannot assess whether Parnas provided privileged material to Congress without reviewing it himself. He added that evidence which prosecutors have provided to Fruman has already yielded “clearly privileged material.”
“Mr. Fruman is not the only person whose privileged information is at risk,” added Blanche.
Blanche wrote that Parnas’s work as a “translator for Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova in connection with their representation” of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash would also be protected.
“Clearly, any materials Mr. Parnas received as a translator assisting attorneys in the representation of Mr. Firtash would be protected by attorney-client privilege,” Blanche wrote. “And that privilege would be held by Mr. Firtash, the client, not Mr. Parnas.”
Federal prosecutors attempted to have Parnas’ bail revoked last month in part over allegations that the South Florida businessman lied about a $1 million loan he received from Firtash’s lawyer in September 2019. The judge denied the government’s request last month.
Read the letters here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--‘You Did A Good Job On Her,’ Trump Tells Pompeo On Spat With NPR Reporter

President Donald Trump on Tuesday piled on the veteran NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly , who ’ s been the target of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after she grilled him on Ukraine in a recent interview .
“ I think you did a good job on her , ” Trump told the secretary .
Pompeo erupted at Kelly after a recent interview when she asked why he had not publicly supported Marie Yovanovitch , the former ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last year after a smear campaign led by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a standing ovation from the audience at a White House event Tuesday — one to mark Trump ’ s attempt at a Middle East peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians , though no representatives for the latter attended — Trump lauded the secretary .
“ Wow , that ’ s impressive , ” he said .
“ That reporter couldn ’ t have done too good a job on you yesterday , huh ?
I think you did a good job on her , actually.
” Trump asked Pompeo if he intended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Kansas and added , “ I guess the answer is ‘ no , ’ after that.
” The comments were the administration ’ s latest in the pile-on against NPR .
Most recently , the State Department barred an NPR reporter from flying on Pompeo ’ s plane during an upcoming trip to Ukraine .
After the interview in which Kelly pressed Pompeo on Ukraine , she later recounted , Kelly “ asked , ‘ Do you think Americans care about Ukraine ?
’ He used the F-word in that sentence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked her to point to Ukraine on an unlabeled map , which she did .
Later , Pompeo accused the reporter of lying and violating an off-the-record agreement , which Kelly denied .
The Washington Post obtained emails supporting Kelly ’ s account .
Trump was involved in the spat before Tuesday : On Sunday , he boosted a tweet about the story from conservative pundit Mark Levin , who asked , “ Why does NPR still exist ?
”

President Donald Trump on Tuesday piled on the veteran NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly, who’s been the target of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after she grilled him on Ukraine in a recent interview.
“I think you did a good job on her,” Trump told the secretary.
Pompeo erupted at Kelly after a recent interview when she asked why he had not publicly supported Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last year after a smear campaign led by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.
After Pompeo received a standing ovation from the audience at a White House event Tuesday — one to mark Trump’s attempt at a Middle East peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians, though no representatives for the latter attended — Trump lauded the secretary.
“Wow, that’s impressive,” he said. “That reporter couldn’t have done too good a job on you yesterday, huh? I think you did a good job on her, actually.”
Trump asked Pompeo if he intended to run for a U.S. Senate seat in Kansas and added, “I guess the answer is ‘no,’ after that.”
The comments were the administration’s latest in the pile-on against NPR. Most recently, the State Department barred an NPR reporter from flying on Pompeo’s plane during an upcoming trip to Ukraine.
After the interview in which Kelly pressed Pompeo on Ukraine, she later recounted, Kelly “asked, ‘Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?’ He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.”
Kelly recalled that Pompeo asked her to point to Ukraine on an unlabeled map, which she did.
Later, Pompeo accused the reporter of lying and violating an off-the-record agreement, which Kelly denied. The Washington Post obtained emails supporting Kelly’s account.
Trump was involved in the spat before Tuesday: On Sunday, he boosted a tweet about the story from conservative pundit Mark Levin, who asked, “Why does NPR still exist?”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--WaPo Guild Urges Paper To Lift Suspension Of Journo Who Tweeted Kobe Bryant Rape Case

Late update : The Washington Post announced Tuesday evening that Somnez was “ not in clear and direct violation of our social media policy.
” Hundreds of members of the Washington Post ’ s news guild signed a letter on Monday in support of Felicia Somnez , the Post reporter who was suspended after she tweeted the Daily Beast ’ s detailed report on the late basketball icon Kobe Bryant ’ s rape case .
The letter , addressed to the Post ’ s executive editor Marty Baron and managing editor Tracy Grant , urged the paper to lift the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was forced to leave her home after receiving “ an onslaught of violent messages , including threats that contained her home address ” for posting the article .
Somnez , a survivor of sexual assault , had posted a link to the Daily Beast ’ s report without commentary on Sunday following the news of Bryant ’ s death .
She also tweeted a screenshot of the threatening emails she had received , then deleted all the tweets pertaining to the issue .
The Post suspended her shortly afterward .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper ’ s high-profile reporters , including Paul Kane , Wesley Lowery , Juliet Eilperin , Josh Dawsey , Ashley Parker and others .
The guild acknowledged that while it was a “ a fraught time ” to share the report , “ we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular , at moments timely and untimely.
” “ The Post ’ s handling of this issue shows utter disregard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence — including the practices we use in our own journalism , ” the guild wrote in its letter .
“ Assault survivors inside and outside this newsroom deserve treatment that is fair and transparent ; that does not blame victims or compromise the safety of survivors.
” The guild also slammed the Post ’ s “ arbitrary and over-broad ” policy on social media that led to Somnez ’ suspension .
“ The company should issue a statement condemning abuse of its reporters , allow Felicia to return to work , rescind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her with any resources she may request as she navigates this traumatic experience , ” the members wrote .
The outlet ’ s communications office did not respond to TPM ’ s request for comment on the letter at the time of writing .
After news of the suspension broke , Grant told Post columnist Erik Wemple that Somnez ’ s tweets had “ undermined the work of her colleagues ” and that the outlet was reviewing whether they had violated the Post ’ s social media policy .
On Monday , Somnez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email Baron had sent her regarding her tweet .
“ Felicia , a real lack of judgment to tweet this , ” Baron wrote with a screenshot of the post .
“ Please stop .
You ’ re hurting this institution by doing this.
” Somnez also told the New York Times on Monday that she had “ expected to get some blowback ” for posting the story , but she was troubled by the erasure of Bryant ’ s alleged misconduct in wake of his death .
“ I can understand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read that , ” she said .
“ But it ’ s also difficult , I imagine , for all of the survivors in the country to see these allegations essentially be erased , which is how I felt in those couple of hours in the newsroom .
”

Late update: The Washington Post announced Tuesday evening that Somnez was “not in clear and direct violation of our social media policy.”
New statement regarding Post reporter Felicia Sonmez pic.twitter.com/HBt2s5VW68 — Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) January 28, 2020
Hundreds of members of the Washington Post’s news guild signed a letter on Monday in support of Felicia Somnez, the Post reporter who was suspended after she tweeted the Daily Beast’s detailed report on the late basketball icon Kobe Bryant’s rape case.
The letter, addressed to the Post’s executive editor Marty Baron and managing editor Tracy Grant, urged the paper to lift the suspension and provide protection for the journalist, who was forced to leave her home after receiving “an onslaught of violent messages, including threats that contained her home address” for posting the article.
Somnez, a survivor of sexual assault, had posted a link to the Daily Beast’s report without commentary on Sunday following the news of Bryant’s death. She also tweeted a screenshot of the threatening emails she had received, then deleted all the tweets pertaining to the issue. The Post suspended her shortly afterward.
The letter was signed by some of the paper’s high-profile reporters, including Paul Kane, Wesley Lowery, Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey, Ashley Parker and others.
The guild acknowledged that while it was a “a fraught time” to share the report, “we believe it is our responsibility as a news organization to tell the public the whole truth as we know it — about figures and institutions both popular and unpopular, at moments timely and untimely.”
“The Post’s handling of this issue shows utter disregard for best practices in supporting survivors of sexual violence — including the practices we use in our own journalism,” the guild wrote in its letter. “Assault survivors inside and outside this newsroom deserve treatment that is fair and transparent; that does not blame victims or compromise the safety of survivors.”
The guild also slammed the Post’s “arbitrary and over-broad” policy on social media that led to Somnez’ suspension.
“The company should issue a statement condemning abuse of its reporters, allow Felicia to return to work, rescind whatever sanctions have been imposed and provide her with any resources she may request as she navigates this traumatic experience,” the members wrote.
The outlet’s communications office did not respond to TPM’s request for comment on the letter at the time of writing.
After news of the suspension broke, Grant told Post columnist Erik Wemple that Somnez’s tweets had “undermined the work of her colleagues” and that the outlet was reviewing whether they had violated the Post’s social media policy.
On Monday, Somnez provided the New York Times a brief email Baron had sent her regarding her tweet.
“Felicia, a real lack of judgment to tweet this,” Baron wrote with a screenshot of the post. “Please stop. You’re hurting this institution by doing this.”
Somnez also told the New York Times on Monday that she had “expected to get some blowback” for posting the story, but she was troubled by the erasure of Bryant’s alleged misconduct in wake of his death.
“I can understand that it would be difficult for people to read that,” she said. “But it’s also difficult, I imagine, for all of the survivors in the country to see these allegations essentially be erased, which is how I felt in those couple of hours in the newsroom.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--Republicans Crafting Way To Avoid Calling Bolton As A Witness

The Ukraine bombshell revealed in former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s unpublished manuscript has made it more difficult for Republican senators to insist that additional witness testimony is unnecessary .
The previously unreported episode , where President Donald Trump allegedly told Bolton that the withheld military aid was linked to investigations into Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton , bolstered the already very good case that Bolton would be a witness with germane , first-hand knowledge of the pressure campaign .
Now , Sen. James Lankford ( R-OK ) seems to be crafting an off-ramp from calling Bolton to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He proposed Tuesday that Bolton ’ s manuscript be given to the senators in a classified setting for individual review .
He also urged Bolton to speak out publicly about his experiences — just not in the Senate .
“ I think getting that information first-hand would be really important for us , ” Lankford said , per the Oklahoman .
“ My encouragement would be : If John Bolton ’ s got something to say , there ’ s plenty of microphones all over the country that he should step forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) has already jumped aboard , saying that he “ totally supports ” Lankford ’ s proposal .
Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) told a Blaze reporter that it “ might be helpful ” to read the manuscript in private .
The proposal is a duplicitous way for Republicans to “ support ” hearing from Bolton without having to concede to calling witnesses .
Most Republicans , led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) , have been staunchly against the idea of calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damaging information further implicating Trump .
“ This is a book , there ’ s no need for it to be read in the SCIF [ Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ] unless you want to hide something !
” he said at a press conference Tuesday .
Republicans have been reduced to arguing that inclusion of new evidence would drag the trial out , and , speciously , that it was the House ’ s job to call the witnesses .
At least a couple of GOP Senators seemed swayed in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reveal went public .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) said that it seems “ increasingly likely ” that other Republicans will want to hear from him .
Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) said that she was already inclined to support calling witnesses , but that the Bolton news “ strengthened the case ” for their inclusion .

The Ukraine bombshell revealed in former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript has made it more difficult for Republican senators to insist that additional witness testimony is unnecessary.
The previously unreported episode, where President Donald Trump allegedly told Bolton that the withheld military aid was linked to investigations into Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, bolstered the already very good case that Bolton would be a witness with germane, first-hand knowledge of the pressure campaign.
Now, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) seems to be crafting an off-ramp from calling Bolton to testify for himself and his Republican peers.
He proposed Tuesday that Bolton’s manuscript be given to the senators in a classified setting for individual review. He also urged Bolton to speak out publicly about his experiences — just not in the Senate.
“I think getting that information first-hand would be really important for us,” Lankford said, per the Oklahoman. “My encouragement would be: If John Bolton’s got something to say, there’s plenty of microphones all over the country that he should step forward and start talking about it right now.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has already jumped aboard, saying that he “totally supports” Lankford’s proposal.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told a Blaze reporter that it “might be helpful” to read the manuscript in private.
The proposal is a duplicitous way for Republicans to “support” hearing from Bolton without having to concede to calling witnesses. Most Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have been staunchly against the idea of calling witnesses, who may present new and damaging information further implicating Trump.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) immediately bashed the proposal.
“This is a book, there’s no need for it to be read in the SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] unless you want to hide something!” he said at a press conference Tuesday.
Republicans have been reduced to arguing that inclusion of new evidence would drag the trial out, and, speciously, that it was the House’s job to call the witnesses.
At least a couple of GOP Senators seemed swayed in favor of calling witnesses Monday, after Bolton’s reveal went public.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) said that it seems “increasingly likely” that other Republicans will want to hear from him.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said that she was already inclined to support calling witnesses, but that the Bolton news “strengthened the case” for their inclusion.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--Trump Tries One Argument For Impeachment, One For SCOTUS

Even as President Trump is arguing in his impeachment trial that the House should have taken him to court to enforce its subpoenas , he made new arguments to the Supreme Court Monday that House subpoenas against his accounting firm and bank are illegitimate and beyond the power of the legislative branch .
“ Whatever powers Congress holds , it may not deploy them in a way that keeps the President from fulfilling the obligations of his office , ” attorneys for the President wrote in a Monday brief .
“ Unleashing each and every House committee to torment the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a recipe for constitutional crisis.
” The arguments come as Trump tries to fight off four subpoenas issued by House committees to his longtime accountant Mazars USA LLP and lender , Deutsche Bank .
Trump sued last year to prevent the financial institutions from complying with the House subpoenas , and is simultaneously fighting a separate case in which a New York grand jury issued a criminal subpoena to Mazars for his financial records .
But the President ’ s arguments in the House subpoena case – delivered in the brief by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – diverge from those made in his ongoing Senate impeachment trial .
There , the President ’ s attorneys and partisans in the Senate GOP caucus have argued that House Democrats failed to complete their investigation before bringing articles of impeachment to the Senate , saying that they should have been willing to sue to get the evidence they wanted .
At the Supreme Court , the Trump team contends that lawsuits launched by the House for the President ’ s financial records fulfill an illegitimate “ law enforcement ” purpose and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Legislative subpoenas may not be used to engage in law enforcement , to investigate into areas where Congress may not validly legislate , and to probe into issues that are not pertinent , ” the brief reads .
“ These four subpoenas flunk this test under the Court ’ s decisions resolving disputes over ordinary legislative subpoenas about routine congressional topics .
But the subpoenas under review here are anything but ordinary , and the congressional investigations that produced them are certainly not routine.
” Trump also accused the House in its brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The House held no full vote on the investigation into Trump before the subpoenas were issued , which the President has seized on to argue that the basis for the probe is illegitimate .
“ Whether Congress is empowered to subpoena the President ’ s personal records—at all—in aid of legislation and , if it is , whether these subpoenas exceed that authority are exactly the kind of interbranch disputes the Court should avoid resolving until Congress has made clear that it understands the stakes and is prepared for judicial resolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weighty constitutional issues presented by this dispute should not be resolved until Congress does so.
” The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the issue this term .
The exact dates for oral arguments have not yet been scheduled , though they are expected to be held in late March .
Read the brief here :

Even as President Trump is arguing in his impeachment trial that the House should have taken him to court to enforce its subpoenas, he made new arguments to the Supreme Court Monday that House subpoenas against his accounting firm and bank are illegitimate and beyond the power of the legislative branch.
“Whatever powers Congress holds, it may not deploy them in a way that keeps the President from fulfilling the obligations of his office,” attorneys for the President wrote in a Monday brief. “Unleashing each and every House committee to torment the President with legislative subpoena after legislative subpoena is a recipe for constitutional crisis.”
The arguments come as Trump tries to fight off four subpoenas issued by House committees to his longtime accountant Mazars USA LLP and lender, Deutsche Bank.
Trump sued last year to prevent the financial institutions from complying with the House subpoenas, and is simultaneously fighting a separate case in which a New York grand jury issued a criminal subpoena to Mazars for his financial records.
But the President’s arguments in the House subpoena case – delivered in the brief by his lead impeachment defense attorney Jay Sekulow – diverge from those made in his ongoing Senate impeachment trial. There, the President’s attorneys and partisans in the Senate GOP caucus have argued that House Democrats failed to complete their investigation before bringing articles of impeachment to the Senate, saying that they should have been willing to sue to get the evidence they wanted.
At the Supreme Court, the Trump team contends that lawsuits launched by the House for the President’s financial records fulfill an illegitimate “law enforcement” purpose and not a “legislative” one.
“Legislative subpoenas may not be used to engage in law enforcement, to investigate into areas where Congress may not validly legislate, and to probe into issues that are not pertinent,” the brief reads. “These four subpoenas flunk this test under the Court’s decisions resolving disputes over ordinary legislative subpoenas about routine congressional topics. But the subpoenas under review here are anything but ordinary, and the congressional investigations that produced them are certainly not routine.”
Trump also accused the House in its brief of failing to properly authorize the subpoenas. The House held no full vote on the investigation into Trump before the subpoenas were issued, which the President has seized on to argue that the basis for the probe is illegitimate.
“Whether Congress is empowered to subpoena the President’s personal records—at all—in aid of legislation and, if it is, whether these subpoenas exceed that authority are exactly the kind of interbranch disputes the Court should avoid resolving until Congress has made clear that it understands the stakes and is prepared for judicial resolution,” the brief reads. “The weighty constitutional issues presented by this dispute should not be resolved until Congress does so.”
The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the issue this term. The exact dates for oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, though they are expected to be held in late March.
Read the brief here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-28--Loeffler’s Trumpian Turn Makes Sense, Given Her Newest Challenger

Rep. Doug Collins ( R-GA ) , one of President Donald Trump ’ s staunchest and most vocal allies , will announce a challenge to appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) in upcoming days .
According to Politico , the two would be competing to finish Sen. Johnny Isakson ’ s ( R-GA ) term after he retired for health reasons last year .
There will be an all-party election this November , with the top two candidates going to a runoff in January if no one gets over 50 percent .
Collins raised his profile as the ranking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he loudly , and often armed with conspiracy theory talking points , gave a full-throated defense of the President .
His impending challenge may explain Loeffler ’ s attack against Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) Monday for “ appeasing ” Democrats by calling for witnesses who will “ slander ” Trump ’ s name .
When Gov .
Brian Kemp ( R ) was selecting someone to fill Isakson ’ s seat , Collins submitted his name for consideration .
He was even Trump ’ s preferred pick , as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ardent supporter in the Senate .
However , Kemp bucked the White House and went with Loeffler , less of a firebrand but more likely to woo suburban women that the party has been hemorrhaging .
Since then , Loeffler has been trying to prove her Trumpian credentials by opposing impeachment and signing off on various anti-abortion bills .
Now , she has even more reason to step up her presidential devotion : Collins , per Politico , already reached out to the White House to take Trump ’ s temperature on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s still full speed ahead on the announcement , one can assume that that talk did not go particularly well where Loeffler is concerned .

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), one of President Donald Trump’s staunchest and most vocal allies, will announce a challenge to appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) in upcoming days.
According to Politico, the two would be competing to finish Sen. Johnny Isakson’s (R-GA) term after he retired for health reasons last year. There will be an all-party election this November, with the top two candidates going to a runoff in January if no one gets over 50 percent.
Collins raised his profile as the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, where he loudly, and often armed with conspiracy theory talking points, gave a full-throated defense of the President.
His impending challenge may explain Loeffler’s attack against Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) Monday for “appeasing” Democrats by calling for witnesses who will “slander” Trump’s name.
After 2 weeks, it’s clear that Democrats have no case for impeachment. Sadly, my colleague @SenatorRomney wants to appease the left by calling witnesses who will slander the @realDonaldTrump during their 15 minutes of fame. The circus is over. It’s time to move on! #gapol — Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) January 27, 2020
When Gov. Brian Kemp (R) was selecting someone to fill Isakson’s seat, Collins submitted his name for consideration. He was even Trump’s preferred pick, as the President liked the idea of having such an ardent supporter in the Senate. However, Kemp bucked the White House and went with Loeffler, less of a firebrand but more likely to woo suburban women that the party has been hemorrhaging.
Since then, Loeffler has been trying to prove her Trumpian credentials by opposing impeachment and signing off on various anti-abortion bills. Now, she has even more reason to step up her presidential devotion: Collins, per Politico, already reached out to the White House to take Trump’s temperature on a possible run.
Since he’s still full speed ahead on the announcement, one can assume that that talk did not go particularly well where Loeffler is concerned.