January 26-27, 2020

Jan 26 03:30 Aric Putnam's empty vision
Jan 26 06:55 Impeachment indicts House Democrats
Jan 26 12:32 Is Klobuchar history?
Jan 26 13:41 Schiff visits Fantasyland, Chuck Todd pretends not to notice
Jan 26 22:21 Harpstead is out of touch with DHS

Jan 27 04:25 Blumenthal follows Democrats' script
Jan 27 05:47 Harpstead must go. Here's why
Jan 27 06:34 John Bolton's publicity stunt?
Jan 27 09:29 John Bolton & Chuck Schumer vs. President Trump & the manuscript

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Aric Putnam's empty vision

Aric Putnam's LTE in the St. Cloud Times is totally unimpressive as a political document. I'd say it's worthless but I don't want to be divisive. In Putnam's LTE, we're told that we "all see great local business leaders who know that you can build business and community at the same time" and that we "see people of great faith driven by moral example and desire for right." Next, we're told that we "see people who work hard and believe that their efforts can make tomorrow better than yesterday."

What a bunch of BS. Despite the strong urge not to subject myself to pain, I visited Putnam's campaign website to find out what his vision is. Here's what I found:

We need to develop a business climate that builds on our strengths. We need jobs that supply a paycheck, but we also need jobs that allow people to improve their standard of living, jobs that create hope for promotion and social mobility. Quality of life is as important as quantity of profit . We can't have one without the other. To accomplish this, we must build and maintain good roads, bridges, and transit to help grow jobs and a sense of community, incentivize entrepreneurship, and provide broadband to all of us. We need jobs that grow the middle class and allow our children to find opportunity here.

That isn't the vision of a capitalist. That's the vision of a crony capitalist. First and foremost, we need politicians who want to make Minnesota's tax system competitive again. We need a regulatory system that doesn't give special interests the opportunity to fight job creators in the courts for 10-15 years. Will Aric fight the environmentalist wing of the DFL? I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Aric promises to clean up corruption, too:

When I am in office, I won't do that. I will work to pass legislation that increases transparency in government. I will advocate to eliminate some of the perks legislators get. I will work for more accountability in campaign finances so that we know who is paying for all those mailers, and I will lower campaign spending limits so legislators can work on creating good policy instead of raising money.

That's a different way of saying that Aric is pro-censorship. That's cookie-cutter DFL gibberish. Which perks that legislators get would Putnam eliminate?

Hold Government Accountable
Elected officials should be public servants. They need to be reliable and accessible to all their constituents. But public service isn't passive; it is active. An elected official should be a leader, should reach out to the community, and have a vision and the skill and will to communicate it.

It's not the job of government to solve all our problems - but a healthy democracy can foster vigorous dialogue and discussion. Elected officials must provide leadership and foster connections between elements of a community, stand up for each of us, and make all of us stronger.

When I am elected, I will hold regular town hall meetings and write columns for our local media. I can't say you'll always agree with me. But you'll always know what I believe, where to find me, and how to get in touch. And you can trust me to always call you back. We deserve representatives who don't take us for granted. We deserve a Senator who works hard to listen to and be heard by all of us.

What will Putnam do to push for reforming the Department of Human Services? Will Putnam ignore the corruption like other DFL politicians have ignored corruption? Will the DFL continue to pass the buck on opioid addiction program corruption? Thus far, there's no indication that the DFL is interested in fixing those problems. Republicans have introduced legislation that will require accountability.

Gov. Walz hasn't paid attention to the problem. Speaker Hortman didn't take the crisis seriously. Sen. Bakk hasn't taken this seriously, either. Why should I think that Mr. Putnam will fight the DFL leadership to fix this crisis?

This video is frightening to capitalists:
[Video no longer available]
In the video, Putnam talks about planning the economy. Stop immediately! Lowering taxes, eliminating regulations and getting government out of the way as much as possible is the way to unleashing the economy's animal spirits. Government meddling in the economy is as welcome as a back-seat driver constantly instructing the driver.

Posted Sunday, January 26, 2020 3:30 AM

No comments.

Impeachment indicts House Democrats

After Saturday's impeachment hearing, Sen. Schumer said that President Trump's team underscored the need for more witnesses. That's totally predictable but it's totally wrong. One of the highlights of yesterday's presentation was the number of times when President Trump's team would play a clip from the House Democrats' presentation. They'd let the clip sink in, then they'd play the full clip in context.

To use one of the senators' words, it was like an episode of Paul Harvey's Rest of the Story. (John Barrasso referenced Paul Harvey.) The House Democrats' presentation included a snippet of information that sounded convincing in terms of convicting President Trump. Saturday, the Trump team played the full clip, including the exculpatory information. That served multiple purposes.

First, it served the purpose of re-highlighting Chairman Schiff's untrustworthiness. Since Schiff's reputation for dishonesty is famous, it didn't take much time to prove that. Next, it served an important service in highlighting how following due process would've spared us this disaster. Had President Trump's team been able to cross-examine the House Democrats' witnesses in public during the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, there never would've been an impeachment because the exculpatory evidence would've already been part of the official record.


Now that everyone can see the whole picture, the Democrats' case has been demolished. No amount of new testimony will revive Schiff's case. There's too much proof that contradicts Schiff's opinions. Now that we've seen the video of Schiff making up the transcript, it's impossible to forget it. Now that we've seen Schiff's interview with Chuck Todd about Russian collusion, people can't forget this:
[Video no longer available]
This isn't just an indictment against the House Democrats' impeachment managers. It's an indictment of each House Democrat who voted for impeachment. Each Democrat voting for this impeachment voted against full due process. Each Democrat who voted for this impeachment voted for an impeachment inquiry that's incomplete. The Democrats who voted for this impeachment didn't take their responsibilities seriously enough. They voted as partisan hacks. Those Democrats didn't vote as patriots.

House Democrats can't now say that they did their job as investigators after President Trump's team exposed the gaping holes in the Democrats' evidence. This didn't just poke holes in the Democrats' case. It's left honest people wondering what's left of the Democrats' proof. Michael Goodwin got it right in this article :

The aim wasn't just to create reasonable doubt. The goal was to demolish the entire case against the president and expose lead prosecutor Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi as pure partisans trying to overturn the 2016 election and steal the next one.

Now that a counterargument is being presented, it's difficult picturing this going much further. The cross-examination of witnesses is essential to justice. One-sided stories aren't sufficient for justice. As we've seen here, a rogue prosecutor that's willing to twist information can improperly injure defendants. That isn't justice. That's the starting spot of corruption.

Democrats chose to participate in Speaker Pelosi's and Chairman Schiff's impeachment rather than doing the right thing. That isn't patriotism. That's the definition of partisanship.

Posted Sunday, January 26, 2020 6:55 AM

No comments.

Is Klobuchar history?

Last week, Sen. Klobuchar shared the co-endorsement of the NYTimes with Elizabeth Warren. Later, she won the endorsement of the Quad Cities newspaper in northeast Iowa. Unfortunately for Sen. Klobuchar's campaign, Sen. Klobuchar didn't win the endorsement of the only newspaper in Iowa that matters. Instead, Elizabeth Warren won the endorsement of the Des Moines Register.

In their editorial explaining their decision, DMR's editorial board wrote "The Des Moines Register editorial board endorses Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses as the best leader for these times. The senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts is not the radical some perceive her to be . She was a registered Republican until 1996. She is a capitalist. 'I love what markets can do,' she said. 'They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity.'"

That's gotta sting for St. Amy. She's been running in the Democrats' moderate lane, where she's thought she was competing with Joe Biden. Along comes DMR's editorial board, who says that Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate in the race. Sen. Klobuchar, aka St. Amy of Hennepin County or St. Amy for short, must've been blindsided with that headline. This doesn't help, either:

Warren doesn't measure the health of the economy by looking at the stock market or an unemployment rate that doesn't count the longtime jobless or chronically underemployed. She measures it by how working families are doing. Many are not doing well, and Warren seeks major reforms to help them.

A qualification: Some of her ideas for "big, structural change" go too far. This board could not endorse the wholesale overhaul of corporate governance or cumulative levels of taxation she proposes. While the board has long supported single-payer health insurance, it believes a gradual transition is the more realistic approach. But Warren is pushing in the right direction.

It's difficult to picture Sen. Warren as a moderate, especially after this dispute:
[Video no longer available]
Elizabeth Warren isn't a moderate. Neither is St. Amy. Joe Biden thinks that we should eliminate fossil fuels so that we're once again dependent on Middle East oil, especially from Iran. Further, each of those candidates want the US to return to the JCPOA. What part of those policy positions sounds moderate to you?

Finally, it's thrilling thinking that Sen. Klobuchar will soon be able to spend more time focusing on her day job as Minnesota's senior senator. Then again, it's a little frightening thinking of her returning to being Minnesota's senior senator.

Posted Sunday, January 26, 2020 12:32 PM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 26-Jan-20 04:36 PM
They're all nuts, Amy is just a little less nutty but not by much. If any of them get elected with a majority in the house and senate, the US is done as we know it. Hopefully enough people know and understand that also.

Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 26-Jan-20 05:21 PM
Senator Klobuchar has the same problem Governor Pawlenty had in Iowa: "Who?" She can hardly claim to be surprised, even here in flyover country. If anything, she has tried to avoid headlines, hiding under her desk from big issues, exchanging recipes with Supreme Court nominees. And those who do know about her, know this and about how she treats "the little people" in her career.

Besides, business is business. The Des Moines Register would look foolish picking anyone unlikely to win even a single delegate.

Schiff visits Fantasyland, Chuck Todd pretends not to notice

Each time Chuck Todd interviews Adam Schiff on Meet the Press, the conversation keeps getting more bizarre. This week's interview isn't any different. According to the transcript of today's show, Chairman Schiff didn't switch out of denying reality. For instance, Chairman Schiff said "What was so striking to me really about their case was that they basically acknowledge the scheme. They don't really contest the president's scheme. They don't say, 'No, he didn't try to get foreign help in the election.' They don't say that there was no evidence that he was conditioning the aid. They just try to make the case that, 'You don't need a fair trial here. You can make this go away.'"

Yesterday was the first day of President Trump's defense presentation. Pat Cipollone spent most of his time demolishing Chairman Schiff's credibility by showing videoclips that start with things Schiff said, then showing the things from the same paragraph that Schiff omitted that would've hurt Schiff's case. Next up was Michael Purpura, the Deputy White House Counsel. His focus was on "6 facts that have not changed and will not change." Here's that video:
[Video no longer available]
The key part of his presentation was saying "the paused funds aren't even mentioned on the call." It's also key that the transcript verifies as fact that "the call transcript shows no link between investigations and security assistance or a presidential meeting." Next, Purpura said that "Ukrainian officials have consistently said there was no quid pro quo and they felt no pressure." Third, Purpura said Ukraine didn't know that the aid had been paused at the time of the call. Fourth, "none of the Democrats' witnesses testified that President Trump linked investigations to security assistance or a meeting." Fifth, the security assistance flowed on Sept. 11th and a presidential meeting took place on Sept. 25 without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations. Finally, nobody has contested that "President Trump has been a better friend" to Ukraine than his predecessor."
This is how Mr. Purpura opened his presentation:
[Video no longer available]
The goal of President Trump's legal team yesterday was to totally obliterate what little was left of Chairman Schiff's credibility. You didn't need a pair of high-powered binoculars to spot that. With such a target-rich environment laid out in front of them, this was like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel. It wasn't difficult to discredit Chairman Schiff.

What's crazy is Chairman Schiff saying that "They don't say that there was no evidence that he was conditioning the aid." Apparently, Chairman Schiff didn't pay attention to Mr. Purpura's presentation. During Purpura's presentation, he said that "none of the Democrats' witnesses testified that President Trump linked investigations to security assistance or a meeting."

That sounds like someone saying that President Trump didn't condition lethal military aid on an investigation.

Posted Sunday, January 26, 2020 1:41 PM

Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 26-Jan-20 05:28 PM
I highly recommend "The Verdict" podcast by Sen. Ted Cruz with The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles. Excellent summary, and more fair to the Democrats than I would be. (iTunes and elsewhere - Google it!)

Harpstead is out of touch with DHS

Michelle Benson, the chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee, issued this statement on the crisis at the Department of Human Services:

When the legislature reconvenes in about one month, health and human services will once again be at the forefront. Two of the issues that will be on our agenda are the dysfunction at the Department of Human Services and the rising cost of prescription drugs.

90-day review of DHS: On December 10, I convened a meeting of the Health and Human Services Committee for the purpose of reviewing new DHS Commissioner Jodi Harpstead's first 90 days on the job.

Commissioner Harpstead has a difficult task in front of her, but her appearance did little to reassure me that she grasps the severity of the problems at her agency. Instead, she said that DHS is "not in free fall, in crisis, in total chaos."

Evidence does not support that tone, nor am I convinced that changes are imminent. There have been more than a dozen reports of mismanagement and corruption since session ended. Most recently, we learned an assistant commissioner approved $1 million in payments to a nonprofit while serving on that nonprofit's board. These payments doubled the group's revenue.

The nonpartisan think tank Center of the American Experiment is tracking government abuses and mismanagement, so you can keep tabs on state government easier. You can view it their scandal tracker at bit.ly/MNScandalTracker .

We did get some good news on the DHS front. Gov. Walz announced he is hiring an independent consultant to look at breaking up DHS . It's good to see the governor finally engaging this issue, and it is encouraging that it appears he is taking a small step toward reforms that Republicans have proposed for a while now. But we have to remember this is only a start, and conducting a review is not a substitute for action on the Governor's part.

It is my sincere hope that Gov. Walz won't try to reshape the agency alone. The only way this overhaul will be successful is if Republicans and Democrats, the Senate and House have a seat at the table. The "go it alone" approach brought us the failure of MNsure. Let's not make that mistake again. Together we can figure out an approach that will benefit the entire state.

It's been my contention that Commissioner Harpstead was a terrible pick to lead DHS. From the start, I thought that she was too prone to being secretive with information. Nothing in this update suggests that she's changed her ways.

Denying that DHS isn't in crisis is likely done to rebuild morale within the department. That's the wrong goal. The first order of business should be restoring competence within DHS. If that means ruffling some feathers, then that's what has to happen. Morale can be rebuilt after expectations are raised.
[Video no longer available]
As the CEO of a major non-profit, cash-flow for Lutheran Social Services, aka LSS, wasn't a problem. Money kept flowing in from the federal government. The minute President Trump clamped down on the Refugee Resettlement program, the cash-flow for LSS tightened exponentially. It didn't take long for Ms. Harpstead to get this job as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. She even talked about how she had led them to being in great shape for the foreseeable future.

In that initial testimony, Harpstead talked about being trustworthy in her opening statement. Denying that DHS has a problem won't build trust. I've said this before but it's worth repeating. The Senate should vote to reject her as the nominee to be the Commissioner of DHS. It's time to find someone who will run DHS properly. People that think DHS isn't embroiled in a crisis don't have a grasp of reality. While that might fit the profile of a typical government bureaucrat, that isn't the portrait of a trustworthy public servant.

Posted Sunday, January 26, 2020 10:21 PM

Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Jan-20 01:45 PM
So, wtf is Benson's plan and policy? It appears she has none, or she'd be talking about that instead of complaining only. She's silent on substance, but man, she surely can complain.

Blumenthal follows Democrats' script

It isn't surprising that Sen. Richard Blumenthal's op-ed follows the typical Democrat script. Sen. Blumenthal is a typical liberal politician. In his op-ed, Blumenthal writes "Just hours after my Republican colleagues voted nine times against seeking documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial, President Trump bragged about the ongoing cover-up while rubbing elbows with billionaires in Davos. He proudly proclaimed that, 'honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material.' Boasting about documents he has withheld sounds a lot like an outright confession to obstruction of Congress."

Omitted from Sen. Blumenthal's op-ed is the fact that the people and documents weren't subpoenaed correctly. Patrick Philbin explains the defense's logic behind the refusals:
[Video no longer available]

The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion:

The House of Representatives must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House's power of impeachment. The House had not authorized an impeachment investigation in connection with impeachment-related subpoenas issued by House committees before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect.

Like other aspects of this impeachment investigation, the House did a sloppy job. That's what happens when you pick partisan hacks to do a professional's job. A different cliche is perhaps fitting -- You get what you pay for. Speaker Pelosi often thinks that she's a queen. I wrote this post to highlight Pat Cipollone's letter to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler. In that letter, Mr. Cipollone wrote "Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process . In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an 'official impeachment inquiry."

I wrote this post , which I titled "This isn't a monarchy & Pelosi isn't the queen", to highlight the fact that "Ms. Pelosi stepped up to the microphone and announced that she was starting the inquiry. That means this inquiry isn't a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the eyes of the courts. When Chairman Schiff requests documents, the White House won't hesitate in rejecting Chairman Schiff's request. Had the whole House voted to start an impeachment inquiry, the House's authority would've expanded substantially. Ms. Pelosi didn't want Republicans to have the same rights that other minority parties had in past impeachment inquiries so she didn't hold a vote."

Speaker Pelosi thought she was an autocrat. Ditto with Chairmen Nadler and Schiff. Now that they're up against a professional in Mr. Cipollone, they're getting taught a lesson. As for Sen. Blumenthal, who cares? He's a nobody, a cookie-cutter liberal politician.

Posted Monday, January 27, 2020 4:25 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Jan-20 01:40 PM
You pejoratively call Blumenthal a "liberal." Blumenthal is a progressive. Pelosi is a liberal. They differ. For instance, Blumenthal has been a consistent advocate of Medicare for All, and a co-sponsor of Bernie's bill. Pelosi still embraces sad-old insufficient Romneycare.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-20 01:50 PM
Actually, they're both progressives. Pelosi wants Medicare-for-All but she knows it doesn't poll well.

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 28-Jan-20 05:42 PM
Blumenthal is also a military service liar but I guess that's just par for the course with a liberal or progressive.

BTW, neither one of these clowns wants the shitty medicare for all for themselves, they just want to stick people like Eric, who think it will be greatest thing in the world, with subpar healthcare while the political class continue to live life large. I really wish there was a way for clueless people to see what "free" health care looks like especially when they get old and not worth a damn to society. Oh wait, there is and it's any country that has socialized medicine.

Harpstead must go. Here's why

Faye Bernstein is a compliance officer within the Minnesota Department of Human Services. According to this article , Bernstein "said she has been excluded from the work she did before speaking out, told by superiors that her opinion 'is no longer needed,' and encouraged to take time off or seek therapy when she objected to the retaliation she continues to face. And Bernstein said some employees have even started 'wild and hurtful rumors' to discredit her."

The article continues, saying "Bernstein, a 14-year veteran of the department, raised concerns in July about 'substandard and noncompliant' state contracts that were being approved by leaders in the agency's behavioral health division, which pays out millions of dollars in contracts and grants for programs that include battling addiction and the opioid epidemic."

This can't continue. DHS needs to initiate an investigation into this immediately. Last night, I wrote this post to question Jodi Harpstead's qualifications for the job of being the commissioner of Minnesota's Department of Human Services. According to State Senator Michelle Benson, Commissioner Harpstead "said that DHS is 'not in free fall, in crisis, in total chaos.'"

That's BS. A department that taunts, intimidates and smears whistleblowers is in free fall and is in total chaos. Instead, Commissioner Harpstead is focused on building morale. Seriously, that's her highest priority. It all got started with this introduction:
[Video no longer available]
You can't fix a problem until you admit that you have a problem. Thus far, Gov. Walz hasn't admitted that he's created a problem. In general, the DFL has pretended that DHS only needs a few minor fixes around the edges. That isn't supported by the facts. The facts are that whistleblowers are getting harassed and tens of millions of dollars have gotten improperly shipped out the door.

The fact that Gov. Walz, the latest DFL protector of the DHS, has proposed hiring an outside consultant to make recommendations on how to break up DHS should say that DHS is in chaos. The fact that Ms. Bernstein continues to get intimidated for doing the job she was hired to do is proof that DHS is still in free fall and not improving.

The Senate, in its advise and consent role, should reject Harpstead. The Senate should tell Gov. Walz and the DFL that it's time to find a leader who will fix the DHS within a year or less.

DHS is too important to too many people to let it flounder under substandard leadership. What's required is a leader from the private sector who knows how to instill integrity and enforce the laws. Commissioner Harpstead isn't that person.

That's why it's time for her to go.

Posted Monday, January 27, 2020 5:47 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Jan-20 01:33 PM
It is easy for Benson to throw stones. If she's any plan and policy in mind, beyond criticizing others, what is it? As one in Republican leadership, has she, or they, any position besides bitch, bitch, bitch without any positive idea how a true problem should be fixed? With Trump, the plan of the opposition is removal; as Benson wants with one in opposition. In each instance, removal resonates with some, but I agree it is wrong to deny there is a big problem. With DHS. As with Trump.

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-20 01:52 PM
The stones that were thrown are mine. I'm the person criticizing Harpstead. Further, breaking up a department the size of DHS can't be done overnight if you want it done right.

Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Jan-20 02:07 PM
Agree, but answers must go beyond beggaring the payroll. This Bernstein, the story says 14-year veteran. That's starting 2006, Pawlenty time; indeed 2006, if I have times correct, was an election year, between two Pawlenty years. The woman went 14 years without complaint; even when Benson's party held sway. Or was she complaining all along, but only now getting traction? If you know.

And yes, the DHS mess should not have happened and an overhaul is needed. If not a problem during Pawlenty years when Bernstein was hired; a doubtful premise, but for now go from it - THEN the problem arose during Tina Smith - Mark Dayton years, where neither was spectacular, nor bold enough. "Tax the Rich" Dayton was a disappointment when he didn't; and Smith is one, from then and now on sulfide mining and in general. We will not get a Medicare for All vote from her and Archie. At a guess. I would love to be proven wrong.

John Bolton's publicity stunt?

This weekend, John Bolton teamed with Sen. Schumer by saying that President Trump "told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens."

This isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The overwhelming evidence disproves Ambassador Bolton's accusation. First, the transcript shows that aid wasn't discussed during the call. Next, President Trump and President Zelenskiy talked about investigating Hunter Biden. Third, Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the transcript of the July 25th phone call was "essentially accurate." Fourth, Ambassador Sondland admitted under cross-examination from Rep. Mike Turner that he just presumed that there was a quid pro quo:
[Video no longer available]
It's understandable that Ambassador Bolton would make this statement. He wants to sell lots of books. Selling out President Trump is a great way of generating that interest. It's understandable why Sen. Schumer believes, at least publicly, that Bolton is telling the truth. He wants to force the calling of witnesses.

Mostly, Sen. Schumer wants to force some Republican senators into a difficult vote. He wants to pressure them as much as possible because he wants to be the majority leader. Also, he wants to keep 3 of his senators -- Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren -- off the campaign trail, especially Sanders. If people can't see that the DNC is trying to rig the election against Sen. Sanders, then they're blind as a bat.

The NYTimes article reads mostly like a gossip column, which is what Bolton's book is likely to be. That isn't unique to Mr. Bolton. Books written by DC insiders frequently are about gossip. It's usually portrayed as giving readers an inside look into an administration.

Sen. Schumer knows that the transcript is the most accurate information on what President Trump's policies were. Multiple people on the call said it's accurate. Nowhere did President Trump connect lethal military supplies with investigations. Ambassador Sondland verified that there wasn't a connection. At what point does this information reach a tipping point?

At what point should common sense and verified proof overtake gossip? At what point should we tell Mr. Bolton to leave the stage and tell him he should peddle his gossip elsewhere?

UPDATE: President Trump has weighed in on the Bolton manuscript:


Posted Monday, January 27, 2020 7:08 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Jan-20 01:19 PM
Gary, Schumer is one of the judges. He wears that hat. It is Schiff who is prosecuting. You appear to be guessing about Schumer; or have you seen evidence of Bolton-Schumer cooperation? What? This is a very important point. Gary, I do not think very much of Schumer either. Itruly would prefer a progressive in leadership, instead. (I may have to wait until next January to have a progressive in charge, White House, both Houses of Congress.) But what's your evidence of any Bolton-Schumer back-room and/or public cooperation with each other?

Comment 2 by Chad Q at 27-Jan-20 05:39 PM
Sheez, Eric wants proof of Schumer and Bolton's collusion yet he takes Schumer and Schiff's word on Trump's so called illegal activities even though they haven't been able to prove anything in 3 years. If you want progressive leadership, move to a country with that kind of failed leadership because the majority doesn't want it here even thought the MSM is pushing hard for it.

Comment 3 by eric z/ at 28-Jan-20 06:25 PM
Chad Q. - A much more credible view of what Bolton wants from this - check out Juan Cole's posting at Informed Comment. And guys, what does Bolton get if there is this Bolton - Schumer conspiracy Chad is postulating? What's his payoff? I see each against the other and God against them all - VP ain't near as neat as P.

John Bolton & Chuck Schumer vs. President Trump & the manuscript

Last night, someone leaked "an unpublished manuscript of [John Bolton's] upcoming book", sending official DC into a tizzy. The Washington Post's Aaron Blake wrote "We finally got a taste Sunday night of what former national security adviser John Bolton might tell President Trump's Senate impeachment trial." Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham appeared on Fox & Friends .

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

While I've never agreed that President Trump "did nothing wrong", I'm more than a little skeptical of this leak, especially with this timing. First, it's worth noting that Bolton was fired as President Trump's NSA. That couldn't have sit well with a man of Bolton's credentials. Next, it's worth being suspicious of a publisher associated with Jim Comey.

Nonetheless, this still comes down to John Bolton's uncorroborated testimony vs. the corroborated transcript of the July 25 call and Ambassador Sondland's testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI. This video is the full video of Rep. Mike Turner cross-examining Ambassador Sondland:
[Video no longer available]
In the first minute of the video, Rep. Turner said "Yesterday, Ambassador Volker, whom I consider to be very talented and a man of integrity and I think you think is a man of integrity, correct?" After Ambassador Sondland nods his approval with that characterization, Turner continues, saying "He testified that the President of the United States did not tie either a meeting with the president or a phone call or any aid to investigations of Burisma, 2016 or the Bidens."

At the end of his cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland, Sondland admitted that President Trump hadn't tied investigating the Bidens with lethal military supplies. Let's think about this. The transcript didn't link lethal military supplies with investigating the Bidens. Ambassador Volker didn't link lethal military supplies with investigating the Bidens. Finally, Ambassador Sondland testified that President Trump didn't link lethal military supplies with investigating the Bidens.

What are the odds that John Bolton will testify that he knows better than 2 ambassadors (Volker and Sondland) and a transcript that's been called "essentially accurate"? That's before factoring in the statements of Ukraine's foreign minister and Ukraine's President Zelenskiy that the aid wasn't tied to investigating the Bidens.

Washington's all aflutter because they want this to be the bombshell that sinks President Trump so badly they can taste it. To Washington, I'd make this statement. Imagine John Bolton's deposition. First, imagine Chairman Schiff deposing Bolton. Then picture Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow and John Ratcliffe interrogating Mr. Bolton. Picture each of them asking Bolton if he's familiar with Ambassador Sondland's testimony. Then picture them reminding him of Ambassador Volker's testimony. Then picture them refreshing his memory of what President Zelenskiy, President Trump and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said about investigating the Bidens.

It's difficult to picture Bolton saying anything that might hurt President Trump at that point. There's just too much verified information that clears President Trump. If Ambassador Bolton disagrees with that galaxy of testimony, imagine the legal exposure he might find himself in. Bolton is too smart to volunteer for that type of scrutiny.

Posted Monday, January 27, 2020 9:29 AM

Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Jan-20 01:00 PM
Gee. It is so sad to see Trump sandbagged with the truth.

And Bolton is your guy. Your Bushco war-mongering guy.

If he has any cause to lie at all, it would be because Trump only killed an Iranian official, but did not cause a full scale war by escalating after the brain trauma 34 military personnel suffered via Iran retaliation for the assassination.

Bolton is a self-promoting neocon horror, but has he been a liar?

Trump lies like a rug.

Last, why is Mike Pence smirking? Do ya think the fix is in . . .

Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-20 02:00 PM
Trump isn't sandbagged. The facts are on his side. Contrary to Schiff's BS, the aid got released. Contrary to Nadler's BS, this is verified by 2 US ambassadors, Ukraine's president & Ukraine's foreign minister.

As for Pence smiling and whether the fix is in, I have a simple question. Are you serious in asking that question? If you are, you're utterly clueless.

Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Jan-20 01:08 PM
Sorry for the second post, but you headline "Schumer" and use him in indexing the post. Yet you never say zip about him in the text of the post. Why? Is there more to the post which you, for brevity, left out? Are you saying Schumer and Bolton (a Bushco guy) are conspiring against Trump? That sure would be news, if there is even a scintilla of evidence, that way? It seems speculation, not fact.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-20 01:55 PM
Before today's hearing started, Schumer was operating as the wannabe Senate Majority Leader. He wore his partisan hat. My evidence is that Schumer only cared about the Bolton manuscript as a vehicle to the majority leader's position.

Comment 3 by Chad Q at 27-Jan-20 05:29 PM
Sandbagged with the truth? I'll bet $100 what has been "leaked" to the press is nowhere near the truth just like all of Schiff's other bombshell truth's he lied about for the last 3 years. You really need to start thinking for yourself instead of being spoon feed lies from the MSM especially since they haven't reported the truth in over 11 years.

Popular posts from this blog

January 19-20, 2012

Image
Jan 19 02:57 Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota's election integrity Jan 19 03:41 Ron Paul's Logic Jan 19 08:08 Newt thrives despite Mitt's hatchet job efforts Jan 19 09:19 Potential Game-Changer: Perry dropping out this am Jan 20 05:12 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Jan 20 00:56 ABC, CNN, crawl into bed with National Enquirer Jan 20 04:00 Child Care small businesses file federal lawsuit Jan 20 04:41 Mitt's biggest policy blunder Jan 20 18:58 Gingrich, Reagan re-united Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Newt takes Sen. Santorum to proverbial woodshed Rick Santorum was really feeling it Thursday night. Then he said something that's certain to cause him pain this morning. Here's what he said that got him in trouble: SANTORUM: But you also have to admit that this freshman congressman who wasn't supposed to win a race came and did something you never did, which is blew the li...
Read more

March 21-24, 2016

Image
Mar 21 01:28 SCSU's budget cuts? Mar 21 02:29 When will the Range change? Mar 21 08:54 DFL's Marty in charge of environment Mar 21 11:45 OLA report, DFL & Meyer Associates Mar 23 12:48 Liberals' definition of moderate Mar 23 14:37 DFL activists: Government is racist Mar 24 08:59 IRRRB: Revamping vs. scrapping Prior Months: Jan Feb Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 SCSU's budget cuts? Cuts in Athletics at SCSU - Will it Really Save Money? by Silence Dogood With a $6,000,000 "structural deficit" and the need to "rebuild reserves by at least $3 million," SCSU has a $9,000,000 hole in its' FY17 budget. It doesn't take a Noble Prize in economics to figure out that reductions in expenditures (i.e., cuts) are going to be made at SCSU. On the Wednesday before Spring Break, SCSU President Dr. Earl H. Potter sent an email to the campus community announcing cuts to the athlet...
Read more

October 31, 2007

Oct 31 01:01 Media Matter's Alter Ego? Oct 31 03:32 Iraqi Civilian Casualties Dropping Oct 31 10:52 Hillary's Panderfest Blows Up in Her Face Oct 31 13:15 Brod, Emmer Call For Investigation of Mark Ritchie Oct 31 19:43 Ritchie's 'Episode' a Tempest in a Teapot? Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Prior Years: 2006 Media Matter's Alter Ego? One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there's another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds . The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend's interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity's America. To say that their post didn't attempt to refute Justin's story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity: Last night's (October 27th) Hannity's America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses...
Read more