Reactions are starting to come in after former National Security Adviser John Bolton allegedly accused the President of tying Ukraine aid to an investigation of the Bidens and Democrat interference in the 2016 election in his new memoir. Of course, we are all reacting to something so far unseen and relying on the very unreliable NY Times.
The President’s Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney was implicated in Bolton’s manuscript and he has denied it.
“John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton’s purported August conversation with the president,” Mick Mulvaney’s attorney Bob Driscoll said in a statement.
Bob Driscoll: “The latest story from the New York Time s, coordinated with a book launch, has more to do with publicity than the truth. John Bolton never informed Mick Mulvaney of any concerns surrounding Bolton’s purported August conversation with the President. Nor did Mr. Mulvaney ever have a conversation with the president or anyone else indicating that Ukrainian military aid was withheld in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 election. Furthermore, Mr. Mulvaney has no recollection of any conversation with Mr. Giuliani resembling that reportedly described in Mr. Bolton’s manuscript… It was Mr. Mulvaney’s practice to excuse himself from conservations between the President and his personal counsel to preserve any attorney-client privilege.”
The lawyer also said Mulvaney has “no recollection” of a conversation with Trump and the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani about the then-U.S. ambassador.
Regardless, the story has no juice. Nothing illegal took place and there are no impeachable offenses.
MARK LEVIN ASKS THE ONE QUESTION WE ALL NEED TO ASK
“If every word of this New York Times story is true, which I doubt, as it’s another politically timed leak,” Levin said, “how does this change anything? As a matter of FACT, there was no quid pro quo. And there’s still no evidence to the contrary.”
If every word of this New York Times story is true, which I doubt as it’s another politically timed leak, how does this change anything? As a matter of FACT, there was no quid pro quo. And there’s still no evidence to the contrary. https://t.co/ivpSXilnIM
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 27, 2020
DEMOCRATS SAID THEY HAD AN AIRTIGHT CASE
House Democrats should have done their job and subpoenaed John Bolton if they felt it was important. Instead, they rushed the case to time with the 2020 campaign. They don’t want to pay any price for that.
They said they had all the evidence they needed.
NO sympathy for the Dems. They never even sent a subpoena to Bolton. Judge Leon w/the Kupperman subpoena agreed to an expedited schedule to resolve the Exec vs. Leg subpoena issue in the Dec/Jan time frame. Schiff lost interest, withdrew the subpoena & filed a motion to dismiss. pic.twitter.com/cjHnrcavfh
— Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) January 27, 2020
REP ADMITS THEY DIDN’T CALL BOLTON SO THEY COULD IMPEACH IN TIME FOR THE ELECTION
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, one of the House impeachment managers, admitted the Democrats rushed the impeachment to beat the election. We grabbed part of the transcript from her appearance Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” from BizPacReview.
Tapper asked the congresswoman about her comments during the impeachment trial urging senators not to “surrender to the president’s stonewalling.”
“But what do you say to those who say, that’s exactly what the House Democrats did by not going to court to try to force subpoenas and force witnesses?” Tapper asked.
“We did go to court, as you know,” Lofgren replied a bit disingenuously.
“But you didn’t pursue it in court. You ultimately withdrew the cases and went to the Senate,” Tapper noted.
“Ultimately, we realized we had the evidence we were going to get, and that it was sufficient to prove our case,” the House impeachment manager asserted.
“But didn’t you surrender to the president’s stonewalling, in that sense?” the CNN host pressed.
“Well, in that — I guess, in that sense, we did,” Lofgren conceded.
“Because, if we had waited for three or four years, the election would be over. The issue would be almost moot,” she admitted. “If he is committing a high crime and misdemeanor now, and continuing to do it, we need to act.”