Friday
Nov082019
The Commentariat -- November 9, 2019
Tal Axelrod of the Hill: "President Trump tore into the House's impeachment investigation in an early Saturday morning tweetstorm as the inquiry is set to enter a new, public phase next week. He retweeted 17 messages in roughly an hour hammering Democrats over the probe, including a handful specifically going after some witnesses who have already testified behind closed doors."
Bolton Knows Many Things. Peter Baker of the New York Times: "John R. Bolton, President Trump's former national security adviser, knows about 'many relevant meetings and conversations' connected to the Ukraine pressure campaign that House impeachment investigators have not yet been informed about, his lawyer told lawmakers on Friday. The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, made that tantalizing point in a letter to the chief House lawyer in response to House committee chairmen who have sought Mr. Bolton's testimony in their impeachment proceedings, arguing that his client would be willing to talk but only if a court rules that he should ignore White House objections.... Mr. Bolton did not show up for a deposition scheduled on Thursday because, his lawyer said, he wants a judge to determine whether he and his former deputy, Charles M. Kupperman, should testify in defiance of the White House.... The lawmakers have withdrawn a subpoena for Mr. Kupperman and indicated they would not seek one for Mr. Bolton because they said they did not want to get dragged into lengthy court proceedings.... Mr. Bolton presumably could take investigators into the Oval Office as none of their witnesses have." CNN's story is here. ~~~
~~~ Mrs. Bea McCrabbie: It sure looks as if Bolton wants to testify, but Cooper seems to be in a pissing contest with House Democrats. Cooper is insisting not just on judicial cover for his clients, but on court rulings that cover his clients specifically, at the same time he's claiming he's not running a stall. Nonetheless, Democrats seem to be bearing in mind that the "many relevant meetings & conversations" to which Bolton was privy might not support the case for impeachment. Remember that Fiona Hill testified that Bolton told her to tell White House lawyers, "I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up." This suggests to me that Bolton -- just as other Republicans are claiming now (see also Chait's post, linked below) -- might testify that Trump was an innocent ignoramus who didn't understand what Giuliani, Sondland, Mulvaney, et al., were up to. That is, Bolton could exonerate Trump, presenting him as only a mark of ambitious underlings, and not as the con-man engineering the Ukraine extortion scheme. ~~~
~~~ Mulvaney Wants to Play, Too. Derek Hawkins of the Washington Post: "Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on Friday asked to join a federal lawsuit seeking a judicial ruling on whether Congress can compel President Trump's senior advisers to testify in the impeachment inquiry. The lawsuit was originally filed late last month by Charles Kupperman, a former top national security aide to Trump, who said he faced conflicting orders from House Democrats and the White House over whether he must participate in the investigation.... Attorneys for Mulvaney said the acting chief of staff was facing the same dilemma. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Mulvaney earlier this week and threatened to hold him in contempt if he refused to comply. In response, White House counsel Pat Cipollone instructed him not to testify, saying Mulvaney, who skipped his scheduled deposition Friday morning, was protected by 'constitutional immunity' that extended to all of Trump's current and former senior advisers." ~~~
~~~ Mulvaney's move to jump into the Bolton-Kupperman sandbox is a little odd given what we know about the Bolton-Mulvaney relationship: ~~~
~~~ Nicholas Fandos, et al., of the New York Times: Attorney Charles Cooper's "hints about what Mr. Bolton might be able to add came as new details emerged from the impeachment inquiry about how an effort by Mr. Trump's allies to use the United States' relationship with Ukraine to accomplish the president's political goals opened a bitter rift inside the White House. According to testimony made public on Friday, the push, spearheaded in large part by Rudolph W. Giuliani..., pitted Mr. Bolton, who sought repeatedly to resist it, against Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff who senior officials said may have played a central role in carrying it out.... [Fiona] Hill and Colonel [Alexander] Vindman said, Mr. Mulvaney appeared to be pushing to use a coveted White House meeting for Ukraine's leader as leverage to secure investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, as well as possible Democratic collusion with Ukraine in 2016. Ms. Hill testified that Gordon D. Sondland ... told the Ukrainian officials in July during a meeting at the White House 'about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations.' Colonel Vindman told investigators he heard Mr. Sondland say his offer had been 'coordinated' with Mr. Mulvaney."
Vindman Stood up to Republicans. Shane Harris of the Washington Post: "In vivid and at times contentious testimony before House impeachment investigators, the senior White House official responsible for Ukraine described what he believed was an unambiguous effort by President Trump to pressure the president of Ukraine to open investigations targeting American politicians in exchange for a coveted Oval Office meeting. Under questioning from Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and other Democrats, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman said 'there was no doubt' about what Trump wanted when he spoke by phone on July 25 to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- particularly in contrast with an April call between the two shortly after Zelensky's election.... Vindman, explaining what he called the vast 'power disparity' between Trump and Zelensky, told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) that Trump's request for a 'favor' from Zelensky was fairly interpreted as a demand.... [Fiona] Hill, whose deposition testimony also was released Friday, testified that Trump's personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and his business associates, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were trying to use the powers of the presidency to further their own personal interests." ~~~
~~~ Natasha Bertrand & Andrew Desiderio of Politico: “During a July 21 meeting in the Ward Room at the White House, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland began discussing how a White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky was contingent upon Zelensky launching the investigations Trump demanded, [Alexander] Vindman testified. That 'deliverable' had been coordinated with acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, he said. Vindman is the third witness to tie Sondland directly to Mulvaney, who defied a subpoena seeking his testimony on Friday.... Vindman described a subsequent meeting in the Ward Room of the White House during which Sondland detailed, with 'no ambiguity,' the so-called 'deliverable' that was required in order for the Ukrainians to secure a White House meeting.... When asked what Sondland specifically said, Vindman replied: 'That the Ukrainians would have to deliver an investigation into the Bidens.'... Several officials have testified that they learned about the aid holdup on July 18. But Vindman said he learned about it more than two weeks earlier, on July 3 [when he received a notice from the State Department that OMB was holding up the funding], shifting the known timeline of when the aid was held up. The aid holdup may have been in the works as early as June, Vindman testified, because he was getting indications from the relevant departments that OMB was asking 'abnormal questions' about the aid.... It's revealed for the first time in Vindman's testimony that Michael Ellis, a White House lawyer and John Eisenberg's deputy, was the first to suggest placing the record of Trump's July 25 call with Zelensky into a top-secret codeword system...." ~~~
~~~ Axios: "Vindman testified that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney 'coordinated' a plan to condition a White House meeting for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on an investigation into the Biden family's business dealings in Ukraine, especially the gas company Burisma. '[EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland] just said that he had had a conversation with Mr. Mulvaney, and this is what was required in order to get a meeting.... So he was talking about the 2016 elections and an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma.' Later in his testimony, Vindland confirmed that -- to the best of his recollection -- Sondland explicitly used the word 'Bidens' when describing the investigation." ~~~
~~~ ** Matthew Daly of the AP: "Transcripts released Friday in the impeachment inquiry show Republicans and Democrats repeatedly skirmishing over GOP questions that appeared aimed at drawing out the identity of the whistleblower who filed the initial complaint against ... Donald Trump. Trump himself speculated that the whistleblower 'should be sued. And maybe for treason.' During questioning last month of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman..., Republicans repeatedly asked questions that could reveal the whistleblower's identity -- leading to sharp exchanges with Democrats and Vindman's lawyer." Daly reports some of the "sharp exchanges." And yeah, they're sharp. ~~~
~~~ The full transcript of Vindman's deposition testimony is here, via Politico. Democrats have highlighted portions of his testimony here.
Nahal Toosi & Kyle Cheney of Politico: "House impeachment investigators on Friday released the deposition transcript of Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official whose testimony has been among the most damaging so far to ... Donald Trump. Hill on Oct. 14 testified before lawmakers on how the Trump aide grew alarmed about the role Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, and others were playing in Ukraine policy -- especially their efforts to pressure the government in Kyiv to investigate Trump's political rivals. She said then-national security adviser John Bolton at one point instructed her to report the concerns to the NSC's lawyers." The reporters highlight parts of Hill's testimony. ~~~
~~~ Jane Timm of NBC News: "Fiona Hill..., Donald Trump's former top adviser on Russia and Europe, told House investigators that her time in the Trump administration was marked by death threats, 'hateful calls' and 'conspiracy theories,' a harassment campaign she said was revived after it was learned she would cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, according to a transcript of her deposition released Friday. 'I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbors reported somebody coming and hammering on my door,' she told investigators in closed-door testimony of her time in the White House. 'Now, I'm not easily intimidated, but that made me mad.'" ~~~
~~~ Anthony Adragna, et al., of Politico: "A former National Security Council official testified last month that Energy Secretary Rick Perry didn't discuss anything inappropriate during a July 10 White House meeting with Ukrainians, though remarks from U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland raised alarm bells among other senior officials. Perry stuck to the 'usual talking points' on broadly addressing corruption in Ukraine's energy sector at the meeting in former national security adviser John Bolton's office, until Sondland interrupted to mention conditions that Ukraine would have to meet to win a White House meeting between the two presidents, according to the Oct. 14 testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill that was made public on Friday." ~~~
~~~ The full transcript of Fiona Hill's testimony is here. House Democrats have highlighted parts of her testimony here.
Jessica Campisi of the Hill: "Two associates of President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani reportedly urged Ukraine's previous leader to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son in exchange for a state visit to Washington. The request came months before Trump's highly publicized July 25 phone call with the country's current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday. Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko met in late February at the offices of Ukrainian general prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko in Kiev, the Journal reported. Lutsenko reportedly said in March that he was investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, but found in May that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.... The meeting with Giuliani's associates reported by the Journal also shows efforts of those close to Trump, as early as February, to urge Ukraine to look into the U.S. president's political rivals." ~~~
~~~ Update. Matt Zapotosky & Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post have the story now: "Two associates of Rudolph W. Giuliani pressed the then-president of Ukraine in February to announce investigations into former vice president Joe Biden's son and purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election in exchange for a state visit, and a lawyer for one of the associates said Friday that they were doing so because Giuliani -- acting on President Trump's behalf -- asked them to. The Giuliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, met with then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Kyiv, said Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a lawyer for Parnas. He said they were working on behalf of Giuliani..., who was operating on orders from Trump. 'There isn't anything that Parnas did in the Ukraine relative to the Bidens or the 2016 election that he wasn't asked to do by Giuliani, who was acting on the direction of the president,' MacMahon said."
He kept saying that over and over. 'They tried to take me down. They tried to take me down.' -- Gordon Sondland, Congressional testimony, on the only example of Ukraine "corruption" Trump offered
He didn't want to hear about it. -- Gordon Sondland, Congressional testimony, when he & other officials tried to tell Trump in a May 23 meeting about Zelensky's anti-corruption initiatives
It wasn't about just fighting corruption. It was about who are my enemies and who are my friends. -- Kurt Volker, Congressional testimony, on Trump's view of Ukraine "corruption"
(Trump publicly [and accidentally] backed up Sondland's & Volker's testimony during Chopper Talk on October 4: Trump insisted "'this is about corruption' or a close variant of that statement six times in less than 40 seconds.... 'Have you asked foreign leaders for any corruption investigations that don't involve your political opponents?' [CNBC reporter Eamon] Javers asked.... 'You know, we would have to look....'" Trump replied. -- Mrs. Bea McCrabbie ~~~)
~~~ William Saletan of Slate: "Republicans say the president wanted to clean up [corruption in] Ukraine. Witness testimony shows he didn't.... [Gordon] Sondland couldn't recall any attempt by Trump to withhold aid from Ukraine last year, when the Kyiv government was plagued by corruption. By contrast, [Bill] Taylor testified that Volodymyr Zelensky, who took office as Ukraine's president this year, 'appointed reformist ministers' ... and 'supported long-stalled anti-corruption legislation.'... Trump and [Rudy] Giuliani have attacked or defended various figures in the Ukraine story based on whether they were useful to Trump, not on whether they were corrupt.... When Ukraine offered a statement pledging to crack down on corruption, Giuliani said that wasn't enough. [Ambassador Kurt] Volker testified that Giuliani, in a phone call, explicitly 'said that [the statement] needs to mention Burisma [a company connected to Biden's son] and 2016. And if it doesn't do that, it's not credible.' Sondland, who was also on the call with Giuliani, corroborated this account.... In private, Trump made clear that when he spoke of Ukraine's corruption, he meant behavior that threatened him personally.... When the intelligence committee's director of investigations asked Volker whether Trump gave 'any specific examples other than the fact that they tried to "take him down,"' Volker said no. Sondland told the same story."
BUT What About the Money? Andrew Desiderio & Kyle Cheney of Politico: "Despite a mountain of evidence supplied by cooperative diplomats -- and a public admission and hasty retraction by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney -- the uncertainty surrounding the hold on the aid [to Ukraine] has only deepened over time.... Only a small cadre of budget officials -- and Trump himself -- has the answers. And they have fought harder than anyone to spurn Democrats' demands for testimony.... In the absence of cooperation from OMB, impeachment investigators have so far been unable to showcase evidence directly linking Trump's hold on aid and his demand that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats.... 'The overwhelming weight of evidence we have received tells us the president ordered that aid to be held up,' [Rep. Jamie] Raskin [D-Md.] [said]. 'However, the president has succeeded in obstructing the witnesses who would tell us the exact mechanics.'"
Julian Barnes, et al., of the New York Times: "The National Security Council's top lawyer John Eisenberg has emerged as a central figure in the impeachment inquiry, appearing frequently in the new transcripts. House investigators want to question him, but he skipped a scheduled deposition this week." In early July, two senior NSC aides told Eisenberg that they feared Gordon Sondland "was improperly pressuring Ukrainian officials to help the president's political fortunes." Eisenberg consulted with White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who advised him to bring the complaints to President* Trump. Instead, "Eisenberg and his deputy decided that ... [Sondland's] efforts ... were unorthodox, [but] they were not criminal.... Mr. Eisenberg would come to the same conclusion again and again when confronted with revelations that Mr. Trump had ordered up a shadow Ukraine policy to advance his personal interests: However disturbing the facts, no one involved violated the law.... Officials have also blamed Mr. Eisenberg for the decision to store on the White House's most secure server a reconstructed transcript of the July 25 call in which Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine's president to announce investigations that could benefit him politically. White House lawyers are conducting an internal review on the handling of the call record. But Mr. Eisenberg denies that he ordered the transcript placed in the system.... The Trump transition team selected Mr. Eisenberg over many prominent Republican national security lawyers who had signed 'Never Trump' statements." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: If you have access to the NYT, the Eisenberg story is worth reading, especially the part where he tried unsuccessfully to save Michael Flynn from incriminating himself to a couple of friendly FBI agents. The reporters, in looking around for Eisenberg defenders, lit on John Yoo the Torture Guy, who recently suggested Alexander Vindman might be guilty of "espionage."
Brett Samuels of the Hill: "President Trump on Friday said there should be no public hearings in the impeachment inquiry as he railed against the process unfolding in the House. 'They shouldn’t be having public hearings. This is a hoax,' Trump said as he left the White House for events in Georgia. The comments mark a sharp break from Trump's allies, who have spent recent weeks complaining about the lack of transparency in the ongoing impeachment inquiry. The first public hearings in the process are set to take place next week.... Trump on Friday downplayed the potentially damaging effects of [witness] transcripts [which the House has released], claiming he was unfamiliar with many of the witnesses and that none of them had first-hand information. 'I'm not concerned about anything,' Trump said. 'The testimony has all been fine. I mean for the most part, I've never even heard of these people. There are some very fine people. You have some Never Trumpers. It seems that nobody has any first-hand knowledge.' The president asserted that all that counts are the call notes from his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky." ~~~
I hardly knew the gentleman. -- Donald Trump, on Gordon Sondland, November 8 ~~~
Ambassador Sondland [is] a really good man and great American.... Importantly, Ambassador Sondland's tweet,* which few report, stated, 'I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind.' That says it ALL! -- Donald Trump, in two tweets, October 8
*Note: Not a tweet, but a texted response to Amb. Bill Taylor -- after a 4-1/2-hour delay during which Sondland spoke to Trump (and perhaps White House staff). BTW, note that Trump is now speaking of Sondland in the past tense. -- Mrs. Bea McCrabbie ~~~
~~~ Quint Forgey of Politico: "... Donald Trump on Friday said he would turn over the transcript of a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky which preceded the July conversation between the two leaders that ignited House Democrats' impeachment inquiry. 'I had a second call with the president which actually, I believe, came before this one, and now they all want that one. And if they want it, I'll give it to them,' Trump told reporters outside the White House, presumably referring to congressional impeachment investigators. 'I haven't seen it recently, but I'll give it to them.'... [Trump phoned] Zelensky in the hours after his election on April 21, and although various reporting has stated that Trump raised the issue of Ukrainian corruption, little is publicly known about the details of the discussion." ~~~
~~~ John Haltiwanger of Business Insider: "... Donald Trump on Friday he's 'certainly' considering accepting Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation to attend Russia's Victory Day parade in 2020. Doing so would offer a major public relations victory to Putin at a time of historic animosity between Moscow and Washington. 'It's a very big deal, celebrating the end of the war,' Trump said to reporters on the annual military parade in Moscow, which commemorates the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.... The president said he's 'thinking about' joining for the parade, but signaled it could be difficult because it occurs in the midst of the 2020 presidential campaign season. 'I would love to go if I could,' Trump said.... Steven Hall, a retired CIA chief of Russian operations, on Friday tweeted: 'For Putin, this would basically serve as Trump's approval of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, military actions in Syria, and paramilitary work in Libya. All wrapped up in one nice package.'" ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: I heard Trump's chopper talk Friday morning. It was pathetic. He repeated himself; then he repeated himself; then he said the same thing again. Frightening.
Not the Best-laid Plan. Jonathan Chait: House Republicans "plan to make the case that [Trump's] deputies 'could have acted on their own to influence Ukraine policy.' So the whole scheme was going on right under Trump's nose, without his knowledge or participation?... The president has developed a lifelong aversion, honed through years of directing shady and outright criminal schemes, to any of his advisers taking notes in a meeting with him.... And so, while European Union envoy Gordon Sondland has testified that Trump directed him to withhold diplomatic favors from Ukraine to compel investigations of Trump's domestic enemies, he has no physical evidence.... Yet the emerging plan to present Sondland as the true mastermind of the Trump administration's Ukraine scheme, and Trump as an ignorant bystander, is going to run into several massive problems.... It relies on the assumption not only that Sondland was acting alone, but so too were several other Trump officials, all in pursuit of the same extortion plot[:] Mick Mulvaney, who has publicly admitted a quid pro quo..., Mike Pence ... when he publicly affirmed that the aid was tied to Ukraine investigating the Bidens.... [Rudy] Giuliani has stated repeatedly that his work was undertaken at Trump's direction ('I don't do anything that involves my client without speaking with my client.')... Then there is the wee fact that Trump actually has revealed his own involvement."
Olivia Gazis, et al., of CBS News: "House Republicans plan to announce Congressman Jim Jordan as an >addition to the House Intelligence Committee, replacing Congressman Rick Crawford. The pugilistic Jordan, a former wrestling coach known for his avoidance of suit jackets, has been a strong defender of President Trump as the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and a prominent member of the House Judiciary Committee. Republican leaders in the House are hoping that Jordan can bring his combative questioning style to the first open hearings in the impeachment inquiry held by the Intelligence Committee next week. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has sole discretion over Intelligence Committee assignments. A spokesman for Crawford did not return a request for comment." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Jordan may be muscling his way into a more prominent role in the impeachment doings, but he has other problems:
~~~ Corky Siemaszko of NBC News: "A professional referee says in a lawsuit filed Thursday that disgraced doctor Richard Strauss masturbated in front of him in a shower after a wrestling match at Ohio State University, and that he reported the encounter directly to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who was then the assistant coach. 'Yeah, that's Strauss,' Jordan and then-head coach Russ Hellickson replied, according to the lawsuit, when the referee, identified in court papers as John Doe 42, told them about the incident. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Ohio implies that Jordan's response to the incident, which the referee said happened in 1994, was essentially a shrug. John Doe 42 is the second person to say he told Jordan directly about either being approached or molested by Strauss, who was found by independent investigators to have sexually abused 177 male students over two decades." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Apparently Republicans are bringing in Jordan because they're not satisfied that Devin Nunes, the ranking member of House Intel, is defending Trump vigorously enough. So ~~~
~~~ Tal Axelrod of the Hill: "Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has formally requested that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chair of the panel, privately testify as part of the House's impeachment investigation into President Trump. In a letter to Schiff, which was obtained and released by Fox News, Nunes wrote that the Intelligence Committee should not be conducting the 'show trial' impeachment inquiry.... 'Although you publicly claim nothing inappropriate was discussed, the three committees deserve to hear directly from you the substance and circumstances surrounding any discussions conducted with the whistleblower, and any instructions you issued regarding those discussions,' Nunes wrote. 'Given that you have reneged on your public commitment to let the committees interview the whistleblower directly, you are the only individual who can provide clarity as to these conversations.'" Mrs. McC: Nunes letter would appear to jibe with Trump's remark Friday that "They shouldn't be having public hearings."
Rachel Weiner, et al., of the Washington Post: "President Trump's former chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon testified against political consultant Roger Stone on Friday, telling a federal jury that he thought of Stone as the Trump campaign's liaison to the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. Bannon ... told the jury he was appearing only because he had been subpoenaed.... '[Stone] had a relationship, or told me he had a relationship with WikiLeaks,' Bannon said. 'It was something I think he would frequently mention.'... Bannon said he discussed WikiLeaks with Stone as Stone was trying to learn more about hacked emails that might tank Clinton's election run. The emails were stolen by Russian agents and shared with WikiLeaks.... '...When you're this far behind, you're going to have to use every tool in the tool box ... opposition research, dirty tricks..., [Bannon testified].... Earlier in the day, former radio show host Randy Credico described on the witness stand how Stone urged him not to talk to Congress about their election year conversations. Credico said Stone threatened to damage the career of a close friend and even take away his dog." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: As Ali Velshi pointed out on MSNBC, this is the first time anyone on the Trump campaign has publicly admitted the campaign was seeking help from WikiLeaks. ~~~
~~~ Darren Samuelsohn & Josh Gerstein of Politico: "... Stone [denied] in a September 2017 appearance before the House Intelligence Committee that he'd discussed with the Trump campaign information he'd received from an intermediary relating to WikiLeaks. But Stone's comments to the panel have been undercut by testimony from people like Bannon and a trail of emails and phone records. One message from Aug. 16, 2016, shows Stone telling Bannon on the day he took over as campaign CEO about the prospect that WikiLeaks would drop more damaging documents for the Clinton campaign. 'I have an idea ... to save Trump's ass,' Stone wrote. Bannon testified Friday that he heard repeatedly from Stone -- before he even took over as Trump campaign chief -- about his access to WikiLeaks. And Stone kept on talking about the potential of more detrimental materials through the late summer and early fall, at a time when Clinton had the lead in the polls." An AP story is here.
Haroon Siddique of the Guardian: A spokesman for "the family of a 19-year-old motorcyclist killed outside a Northamptonshire RAF base in a crash involving the wife of a US diplomat [said] ... that their meeting at the White House on 15 October ended with the president saying the secretary of the treasury, Steven Mnuchin, was 'standing by ready to write a cheque'.... [Spokesman Radd] Seiger added: 'It was almost as if he let it slip out. When he said: 'We've got the driver here', he basically meant we're all going to have a big hug and a kiss and I'll get my treasury guy to write a cheque. That's how it was.... The more I think about those words, the more shocking it is.'" ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: Somebody please show me the Article II clause that provides that the president* "may disburse federal monies to persons or entities he from time to time may deem deserving of certain compensation." In the meantime, I'm wondering if it was really Mnuchin standing by with a check or if Trump had recruited Mnuchin's lovely wife Louise Linton, dressed in a skimpy costume, to hand the Dunns a giant foamboard check. Congress might want to ask Steve Mnuchin about this & about any occasions he might have handed out Treasury checks to other lucky winners of the Trump Game Show.
Katie Shepherd of the Washington Post: "In an unusually critical speech that lamented the public's flagging confidence in the independence of the judicial branch, a federal judge slammed President Trump for 'feeding right into this destructive narrative' with repeated attacks and personal insults toward judges he dislikes. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia said Trump's rhetoric 'violates all recognized democratic norms' during a speech at the annual Judge Thomas A. Flannery Lecture in Washington on Wednesday. 'We are in unchartered territory,' said Friedman, 75, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. 'We are witnessing a chief executive who criticizes virtually every judicial decision that doesn't go his way and denigrates judges who rule against him, sometimes in very personal terms. He seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a coequal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions.'"
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor People with a Few Thousand Bucks to Drop on Fees. Zolan Kanno-Youngs & Miriam Jordan of the New York Times: "The Trump administration on Friday proposed hiking a range of fees assessed on those pursuing legal immigration and citizenship, as well as for the first time charging those fleeing persecution for seeking protection in the United States. The rule, which will be published on Thursday and will have a monthlong comment period, would increase citizenship fees more than 60 percent, to $1,170 from $725, for most applicants. For some, the increase would reach 83 percent. The government would also begin charging asylum seekers $50 for applications and $490 for work permits, a move that would make the United States one of four countries* to charge people for asylum. It would also increase renewal fees for hundreds of thousands of participants of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA." Emphasis added. ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: The only three countries are reportedly Iran, Fiji, and Australia.
Presidential Race 2020
Normon Solomon in TruthDig: "The donations from billionaires to the current Democratic [presidential] candidates could be viewed as a kind of Oligarchy Confidence Index, based on data from the Federal Election Commission. As reported by Forbes, Pete Buttigieg leads all the candidates with 23 billionaire donors, followed by 18 for Cory Booker, and 17 for Kamala Harris. Among the other candidates who have qualified for the debate coming up later this month, Biden has 13 billionaire donors and Amy Klobuchar has 8, followed by 3 for Elizabeth Warren, 1 for Tulsi Gabbard, and 1 for Andrew Yang. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has zero billionaire donors. (The tenth person who has qualified for the next debate, self-funding billionaire candidate Tom Steyer, is in a class by himself.) Meanwhile, relying on contributions from small donors, Sanders and Warren 'eagerly bait, troll and bash billionaires at every opportunity,' in the words of a recent Los Angeles Times news story." Thanks to P.D. Pepe for the lead & Forrest M. for the link.
Senate Race 2020. Alabama. Mrs. McCrabbie: In his nutso Chopper Talk "press conference" Friday morning, Donald Trump responded to a question about Jeff Sessions' run for Senate by remarking that Sessions "has said nice things about me." Yes, yes, he has. Sessions is kicking off his Senate campaign with an appeal, not to Alabamians, but to a Florida man:
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (11)
More possibly grim news for democracy:
Bevin has filed for a recanvass of the Kentucky election results. This is what the process looks like.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/what-is-a-recanvass/index.html
After the Secretary of State Grimes reaches her conclusion and the state election board certifies the results, the Kentucky law allows a further protest of the results that could send the issue to the Kentucky assembly, which it appears could draw its own conclusions.
And for some reason I just don't trust 'em.
These creeps are making me (long proud of my calm sanity) paranoid.
"~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: I heard Trump's chopper talk Friday morning. It was pathetic. He repeated himself; then he repeated himself; then he said the same thing again. Frightening."
I, too, heard it and was appalled. I don't know whether you noticed but while he was talking a group of young cadets standing together under some kind of canopy on the far side of where the press was gathered were clearly doing a "Oh, my god, can you believe this fruitcake?"–-one almost bending over from trying not to laugh out loud.
If, let's say, any one of our past presidents had held a press conference like this you could bet they'd be hauled off to hospital for a look-see ––the beginning of Alzheimer's? The fact that we have let this man serve in this capacity for this long is astounding to me.
I do recall a time when Reagan completely lost his train of thought and stood before a crowd awkwardly; lucky for him Nancy was by his side and whispered into his ear. But that incident was big news at the time.
Good for Paul Friedman, the district judge who called out Trump saying:
"We are witnessing a chief executive who criticizes virtually every judicial decision that doesn’t go his way and denigrates judges who rule against him, sometimes in very personal terms. He seems to view the courts and the justice system as obstacles to be attacked and undermined, not as a coequal branch to be respected even when he disagrees with its decisions.'”
Jim Jordon––I wait with anticipation if he tries to tackle with the likes of Fiona Hill; she'll eat him alive, then spit out the remains.
Did you come up with "Chopper talk"? I love it! Back in the day SNL had an hilarious sketch called "Coffee Talk."
@P.D. Pepe: I didn't come up with "chopper talk." I may have heard one of the late-night comedians (Colbert, probably) use it first, but I think it's a somewhat common term now on news-oriented talk shows.
Didn't see Trump's "press conference"; just heard it while I was rehanging a bathroom mirror that had started to fall out of the frame. I still look marvelous, Darling.
Tales from the Grammar School Cafeteria
So the latest Let’s Help Donald Escape Impeachment bullshit (there’s been enough to fill several thousand rodeo pens) comes via some CYA outburst by Fuller Brush Mustache Man John Bolton who seems to be blaming the entire Ukraine clusterfuck on Sondland and Mulvaney?
Sondland knows about hotels and a bank he founded. It was considered an outrage that such an inexperienced naif was handed the ambassadorship in such a global hotspot. Mulvaney is a low level state pol from SC who came to prominence through his hatred of anyone helping consumers avoid fraudulent efforts by Wall St to screw them out of every penny they had ever earned.
But these two bumblers are responsible for an illegal scheme to A, ratfuck a political opponent of the Orange Menace, B, help Russia against their sworn enemies in Ukraine, C, absolve Putin of any blame for helping Fatty steal the 2016 election, D, further enrich the greedy, clutching Giuliani, his brother Darrell and his other brother Darrell, and E, all by means of a nasty, gangland style Quid Pro Quo (“Nice country you got. Be a shame if Russia stormed the gates and raped your wives and daughters and killed your sons.”)??
And to top it off, the Traitor in Chief knew nothing about any of this but was Sondland and Mulvaney’s useful idiot who did what he was told?
They’re better off sticking to “Okay, yeah. He did the Quid Pro Quo. So what?”
But, of course Fatty has no worries. Giant brained Nunes and Gym Jordan are on the job.
Meanwhile, former Fatty would-be Svengali, Steve Bannon (did he wear three shirts in court, or only two?), is inserting a very sharp object into the back of Supreme Liar, Ratfucker and bosom buddy of the little king, Roger Stone. I hope that blade went through the eye of that Tricky Dicky tattoo on his back. And Stone, by the way, never heard of Wikileaks and was duped by everyone. Including the guy at Sunglasses R Us who sold him those black granny glasses that make him look like a guy stumbling out of an opium den in Bombay.
This is what happens when you live in a snake pit and surround yourself with incompetent, self-serving vipers. Maybe Gilbert Sondland, in between putting mints on the pillows, cooked up the Russia-Wikileaks-Trump connection to screw Hillary Clinton. All without Fatty knowing a thing. Because according to Bolton (and likely a passel of Fox lemmings), that type of international master planning is just his meat.
This is the type of retarded nonsense that not too swift 5th graders, bagged by the cafeteria lady for swiping extra Nutty Buddies, would come up with.
This is really all they got?
@Akhilleus: You raise a lot of important issues, but obviously the most critical was, “did [Steve Bannon] wear three shirts in court, or only two?” This is a fundamental mystery.
According to Politico (linked above), Bannon wore more than one shirt: he was “clad in his trademark, tieless all-black outfit complete with layered shirts.” Courthouse News has Bannon “clad in a rumpled black shirt and black jacket.” The Daily Beast has Bannon “dressed in several shirts and a jacket.” The irresponsible fake news New York Times & Amazon Washington Post do not comment upon Mr. Bannon's attire.
Howevah, photos accompanying some of the stories are helpful. Outside the courtroom, as far as I can tell based on the photos, Bannon was wearing (1) an olive-drab anorak, and under that (2) a black, unbuttoned suit jacket. Under the suit jacket there appears to be (3) a pullover shirt with collar & partial button front, which he had decorated with a couple of silver pens clipped to the button opening. Beneath that shirt, one can see what is probably (4) a collarless, Henley-style knit shirt with at least the top two button unbuttoned. Finally, beneath that is (5) a round-necked black tee-shirt. No way to tell, alas, if there are other layers beneath the tee shirt, like what my husband called a "canottiera."
In 2017, Olivia Nuzzi of New York mag researched this pressing question & learned all about why Bannon wears so many shirts.
Glad to help.
@P.D.: "be hauled off to hospital for a look see -- the beginning of Alzheimer's"?
No. Moderately advanced Alzheimer's. And lots of people are commenting on his now more pronounced loss of vocabulary. This is the normal course of untreated Alzheimer's. Memory loss does not have to be first. Perseverative phrases or behaviors are commonly seen.
This is really happening; and it's really dangerous, not just pathetic.
This means that R's are preventing an ill person from getting to care. It seems clear that the "cabinet" will do nothing.
But think on the positive side: pretty soon we'll all be able to recognize the clinical presentations of Alzheimer's variants.
I just finished choking on a perfectly good beer when I saw the New York Post reporting that the Trump Baby blimp will be at the Alabama vs LSU game today.
I sure hope it flies where he has to look at it.
More on Fatty's foray in football today here and here.
I hope Roll Tide gets rolled this game.
I find it outrageous that our court system doesn't have some sort of mechanism that can rocket pivotally important decisions to a next day or at least next week basis. This whole bullshit that we have to wait for some ridiculous amount of time so a judge can finally get around to mark his or her calendar and sit down for a case with such national implications and that is so extremely time sensitive is a bald face manipulation of the judicial branch.
And the judicial branch openly allows its manipulation.
I thought the secret password "impeachment" meant the courts would be "more responsive" but they're dropping the fucking ball called Democracy by dragging their feet. I agree we can't wait around for the courts, but that means the courts are essentially smothering potentially explosive evidence of assholes who should be obeying a Congressional subpoenas, undermining the very balance of our branches by serving as a giant roadblock for the executive all because of fancy formalities. This Bolton/Mulvaney/other crooks lawsuits should've been resolved yesterday, and that everyone just shrugs and say "oh well, gotta respect the archaic process" is not looking at this obvious clear and present danger with the urgency the current monent demands.
The Republicans finally, for reals this time, found their coup. Turns out it was not the Democrats or the Never Trumpers, it was coming from inside the (white) house. Sonderland, the EU ambassador who gave a million dollars to Trump. Mulvaney, Trump's right hand man. And Rudy, Trump's personal lawyer. These three brain surgeons decided on their own to take over US foreign policy in Ukraine. It's just a coincidence that their work benefitted Trump politically. I'm sure that we will be seeing the Republicans ask the DOJ to look into charging these traitors any day now.
From Daily KOS. Someone cme up with new dust covers for the Crown Princes new book; https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/8/1898164/-Someone-went-into-Barnes-Noble-and-replaced-the-covers-of-Trump-Jr-s-new-book?detail=emaildkre