Kansas Crimson

Oh what a tangled web...

The White House Press Secretary too?

bolton’s story...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/ ... eport.html

“We’re going to see more Parnus tapes. We’re going to watch Parnas tapes so much. We’re going to watch Parnas tapes so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of watching Parnas tapes, you’re going to come to me and go ‘Please, please, we can’t watch anymore.’ You’ve heard this one. You’ll say ‘Please, Mr. President, we beg you sir, we don’t want to watch anymore. It’s too much. It’s not fair to everybody else.’” Trump said. “And I’m going to say ‘I’m sorry, but we’re going to keep watching Parnas tapes, watching Parnas tapes, watching Parnas tapes. We’re going to make America great again.”

Sadly, everything this guy says, is true:

So, either Bolton or Barr is lying?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:49 pm bolton’s story...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/ ... eport.html

...In recent weeks, Bolton has reportedly distributed drafts to his associates and to the White House, as is standard procedure in post-administration publishing. According to the Times, Bolton’s account of the Ukraine scandal includes new information on fellow cabinet members’ attempts to stay above the turbulence, or how their presentation of the timeline might not line up with reality:

For example, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged privately that there was no basis to claims by the president’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani that the ambassador to Ukraine was corrupt and believed Mr. Giuliani may have been acting on behalf of other clients, Mr. Bolton wrote.

Mr. Bolton also said that after the president’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine, he raised with Attorney General William P. Barr his concerns about Mr. Giuliani, who was pursuing a shadow Ukraine policy encouraged by the president, and told Mr. Barr that the president had mentioned him on the call. A spokeswoman for Mr. Barr denied that he learned of the call from Mr. Bolton; the Justice Department has said he learned about it only in mid-August.

And the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was present for at least one phone call where the president and Mr. Giuliani discussed the ambassador, Mr. Bolton wrote. Mr. Mulvaney has told associates he would always step away when the president spoke with his lawyer to protect their attorney-client privilege.

For Democrats, the draft reinforces claims that Bolton’s testimony is necessary to see the full picture of Trump’s impeachable behavior; for Republicans, it further proves the efficacy of limiting testimony, so that a major player in the scandal does not undermine the Trump legal team’s spurious defense.

“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,” the House impeachment managers said in response to the Times report.

But as the trial crawls into its second week, it’s looking more and more likely that Democrats will not be able to get the 51 votes needed to call for witnesses. Bolton, however, is onboard, believing that he has information that is relevant to the record. According to the Times, he has a more opportunistic reason as well, expressing concern to associates that if his depiction of the Ukraine scandal is made public post-trial, he will be accused of suppressing the information in order to boost his book sales.

lulz

Bolton's just a disgruntled former employee. He has always been a loser. How can you trust his word against tiny, who tells 20+ verified lies a day?

I think you can't, we just need to know that Bolton could be lying.

Let's hurry up with those "middle class" tax cuts before things get any dicier m'kay? Throw a bone to the "middle class" real estate developers in this package why don't you. Maybe we can just eliminate taxes on my "middle class" stock dividends and my "middle class" capital gains? My stock buy down starts in 2 years and the corporation stock is sitting at 2X the purchase price. To help out the little guys, maybe anything under a $1,000,000 should not be taxed, that seems fair.

Feral wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:38 pm Sadly, everything this guy says, is true:

Count me among those who just completely missed it. I thought the supposed core positions - responsible spending, individual liberty, states' rights, and so on - mattered. It is clear they do not.

you forgot law and order too...

In all seriousness, is there a legitimate reason to NOT allow witnesses at the Senate trial? Has anyone provided an actual sensible, compelling reason why gathering all relevant testimony and documents in relation to the case should not be done?

When the defense is "So What", you don't need evidence.

Rudy and Lou, doin' work:

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:15 am In all seriousness, is there a legitimate reason to NOT allow witnesses at the Senate trial? Has anyone provided an actual sensible, compelling reason why gathering all relevant testimony and documents in relation to the case should not be done?

No.

One of Trump and his enabler's oft' repeated, favorite lies:

lulz:

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:47 am lulz:

You owe me a new keyboard and screen - I sprayed sparkling water all over them! I wouldn't put it past Collins to pull some similar excuse to vote the party-line. What a joke the Republicans have become. It's gotten to a point where it is high time a majority of the country relegates the modern version of this Party to the "ash heap of history".