Bolton Blows Up Trump Team’s Foolhardy Quid Pro Quo Defense.. By Andrew C. McCarthy

[mystery-ak]

   Bolton Blows Up Trump Team’s Foolhardy Quid Pro Quo Defense
By Andrew C. McCarthy

January 27, 2020 12:29 PM

They advanced an argument they didn’t need to make, and now it will cost them.

Don’t build your fortress on quicksand.

That’s been my unsolicited advice for President Trump and his legal team. You always want the foundation of your defense to be something that is true, that you are sure you can prove, and that will not change.

Instead, the president and his team decided to make a stand on ground that could not be defended, on facts that were unfolding and bound to change. Last night, that ground predictably shifted. In a soon-to-be-published memoir, former White House national-security adviser John Bolton asserts that the president withheld $391 million in defense aid in order to pressure Ukraine into investigating Trump’s potential 2020 election opponent, former vice president Joe Biden.

For months, I’ve been arguing that the president’s team should stop claiming there was no quid pro quo conditioning the defense aid Congress had authorized for Ukraine on Kyiv’s conducting of investigations the president wanted. Trials and impeachment itself are unpredictable. You don’t know what previously undisclosed facts might emerge during the trial that could turn the momentum against you. So you want to mount your best defense, the one that can withstand any damaging new revelations.

more
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/bolton-blows-up-trump-teams-foolhardy-quid-pro-quo-defense/

[PeteS in CA]

Ummmmm, no. Because:

1. Phone call transcript.

2. Ukrainians deny there was any quid pro quo.

3. Ambassador Sondland testified that Trump told him in so many word that there was no quid pro quo and he (Trump) did not want such an arrangement.

4. Ukrainians didn't know aid was on hold until weeks after the phone call.

5. Bolton places Trump's comment - assuming it happened as claimed, with no context that changes the meaning - in August, around the time the aid was released.

[Cyber Liberty]

Bolton's book was not sent over to the Senate as evidence in the case, so this is a tempest in something smaller than a teapot.  It is to be ignored.

[Fishrrman]

Didn't this story about what's supposed to be in Bolton's [unreleased] book come from the New York Times?

How reliable "a source" have they been lately?

Do you trust what appears in their print?

[Cyber Liberty]

Didn't this story about what's supposed to be in Bolton's [unreleased] book come from the New York Times?

How reliable "a source" have they been lately?

Do you trust what appears in their print?

The "book" has yet to be vetted for National Security leaks, so it won't be released for quite some time.  This is just anther case of the Rats trying for a do-over of their shoddy Impeachment Articles.

[Smokin Joe]

The "book" has yet to be vetted for National Security leaks, so it won't be released for quite some time.  This is just anther case of the Rats trying for a do-over of their shoddy Impeachment Articles.

Either that or someone reviewing books for national security leaks is leaking.

If that's the case, they can't be trusted with their job and should be fired.

[Jazzhead]

The NYT isn't credible,  but the WSJ is.   This morning, WJS editorialized that Bolton should at a minimum speak for the record - not necessarily in the well of the Senate but in an op-ed - about what he knows.    It is, when all is said and done, not news that Trump wanted to delay aid in order to pressure Ukraine to clean up its corrupt act.   It is also not news that he was ultimately persuaded to release the aid - on time - without any preconditions regarding Ukrainian corruption investigations.   

What we have at the current time is the best possible situation for Democrats -  unsubstantiated rumors regarding what Bolton knows dropped into the media at the very moment when Trump is defending himself before the Senate,  for the clear purposes of blunting the President's message and promoting the narrative that the Senate itself is complicit in a cover up.   Their endgame is not to remove the President, but to flip the Senate this November.   I don't disagree with WSJ that what's needed, perhaps as soon as the Trump defense concludes but before the question and answer period, is for Bolton to step forward and explain himself for the record.   

[sneakypete]

Didn't this story about what's supposed to be in Bolton's [unreleased] book come from the New York Times?

How reliable "a source" have they been lately?

Do you trust what appears in their print?

@Fishrrman

HEY! If you can't trust "The Gay Old Lady" to accurately report the news,who can you trust?

[Bigun]

[Cyber Liberty]

We're talking about a source that isn't even second-hand.  I find the timing of this story as suspicious as the story that was leaked against Roy Moore right after ballots were printed with his name.

[Bigun]

We're talking about a source that isn't even second-hand.  I find the timing of this story as suspicious as the story that was leaked against Roy Moore right after ballots were printed with his name.

Can anyone show me any quote marks in the NY Times story? I seem to have missed them if they are there. IMHO this is just another hit job timed to distract from the defense team's presentations at the impeachment trial. The MO of the NY Times has become very familiar to me at this point.

[libertybele]

Of course the timing of this is suspicious; it was a calculated move no doubt.  The book will make more $$ being released now than later. I would love to see Bolton have to testify under oath and THEN proven to have perjured himself.

It's a really sad day when the MSM and journalists focus on Bolton rather than on yesterday's hearing when Bondi shredded Biden and Obama -- that news was completely buried for the most part.  In reality MSM has lost all credibility and should be seen no more than an avenue for the leftist, globalist to push their agenda.  Remember for the most part, they are the ones that succeeded in getting a virtually unknown black man into the oval office and assisted him in the demise of our country.

[Cyber Liberty]

Can anyone show me any quote marks in the NY Times story? I seem to have missed them if they are there. IMHO this is just another hit job timed to distract from the defense team's presentations at the impeachment trial. The MO of the NY Times has become very familiar to me at this point.

There are no quotes because this is 100% innuendo, designed to convince the limp-noodle RINOs to demand witnesses for the Prosecution.  IOW, it's a Rat trick. 

[Jazzhead]

I say let's get this damn thing done.   Call Bolton to testify as the only witness before a vote to convict or acquit.   I, like others,  would be curious to hear what Bolton will say,  because I think he's an honest man and a solid conservative.  Remember,  he wrote the following about the State Department bureaucracy:

[T]oo much of the permanent bureaucracy thinks it is responsible not just for implementing policy, but for setting it, no matter what the president of the moment thinks, certainly not if that president is a Republican.

I have little concern about Bolton's testimony jeopardizing the President's acquittal,  because the aid to Ukraine was delivered, on time, without preconditions.   The President likes to bloviate and speak his mind.  Bolton, a Russia hawk, supported military aid to Ukraine and no doubt voiced his opposition to any temporary delay.  In the end,  Trump listened to him, just as he listened to other voices after fulminating to his White House counsel to fire Robert Mueller.

The parry and thrust of Oval Office conversations is meaningless if the bottom line is that Trump ultimately decided to release the aid without preconditions.  Bolton's a conservative voice that,  frankly,  America needs to hear.  His testimony will provide cover to those GOP Senators in reelection battles from the Dem charge of "cover up".   Meanwhile,  nothing Bolton can say will change the essential facts that Trump's ultimate actions conformed to the will of Congress.   

[Cyber Liberty]

I say let's get this damn thing done.   Call Bolton to testify as the only witness before a vote to convict or acquit.   I, like others,  would be curious to hear what Bolton will say,  because I think he's an honest man and a solid conservative.  Remember,  he wrote the following about the State Department bureaucracy:
 

I have little concern about Bolton's testimony jeopardizing the President's acquittal,  because the aid to Ukraine was delivered, on time, without preconditions.   The President likes to bloviate and speak his mind.  Bolton, a Russia hawk, supported military aid to Ukraine and no doubt voiced his opposition to any temporary delay.  In the end,  Trump listened to him, just as he listened to other voices after fulminating to his White House counsel to fire Robert Mueller.

The parry and thrust of Oval Office conversations is meaningless if the bottom line is that Trump ultimately decided to release the aid without preconditions.  Bolton's a conservative voice that,  frankly,  America needs to hear.  His testimony will provide cover to those GOP Senators in reelection battles from the Dem charge of "cover up".   Meanwhile,  nothing Bolton can say will change the essential facts that Trump's ultimate actions conformed to the will of Congress.

So, you agree only the Prosecutors can call witnesses.  Sounds "fair," as defined by Pelosi and Schumer.  I am just as interested in ferreting out how this alleged "whistleblower" who never witnessed anything came to be Schitt's star witness.  Is your desire to hear this 11th hour information more important than my desire to let Trump face his accuser?

If the Prosecution gets witnesses, so does the Defense.

[Jazzhead]

So, you agree only the Prosecutors can call witnesses.  Sounds "fair," as defined by Pelosi and Schumer.  I am just as interested in ferreting out how this alleged "whistleblower" who never witnessed anything came to be Schitt's star witness.  Is your desire to hear this 11th hour information more important than my desire to let Trump face his accuser?

If the Prosecution gets witnesses, so does the Defense.

Be careful what you wish for.  Dragging this farce out longer than necessary to protect GOP Senators vulnerable in close elections is not,  I believe, in either the President's or the GOP's best interest.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The NYT isn't credible,  but the WSJ is.   This morning, WJS editorialized that Bolton should at a minimum speak for the record - not necessarily in the well of the Senate but in an op-ed - about what he knows.    It is, when all is said and done, not news that Trump wanted to delay aid in order to pressure Ukraine to clean up its corrupt act.   It is also not news that he was ultimately persuaded to release the aid - on time - without any preconditions regarding Ukrainian corruption investigations.   

What we have at the current time is the best possible situation for Democrats -  unsubstantiated rumors regarding what Bolton knows dropped into the media at the very moment when Trump is defending himself before the Senate,  for the clear purposes of blunting the President's message and promoting the narrative that the Senate itself is complicit in a cover up.   Their endgame is not to remove the President, but to flip the Senate this November.   I don't disagree with WSJ that what's needed, perhaps as soon as the Trump defense concludes but before the question and answer period, is for Bolton to step forward and explain himself for the record.

@Jazzhead

I understand your point, but disagree.  Whatever Trump may have said to Bolton at some point is irrelevant to the ultimate issue of whether or not the President should be removed from office.  What should be dispositive is that the aid ultimately was released, and without getting any pro for that quid.  Whether there was a miscommunication between Bolton and Trump, whether Trump was speaking off the cuff and didn't really mean it, or whether he did mean it but ultimately decided against it, doesn't matter. He did not go through with it.  And delaying aid for a few weeks cannot be the basis for removing him from office.  Especially when there were valid grounds to believe that something truly shady had been going on.

Had the aid actually been cancelled, or had Ukraine actually provided the information before receiving the aid, that might be a different story.  But you don't remove a President from office for abandoning a problematic course of action. 

Why would you have Bolton testify -- particularly as the only witness -- unless his testimony was dispositive on the ultimate question?  How does it look if you drew massive attention to what he has to say, he's credible, but then you acquit anyway?  The best defense has to be that Bolton's testimony about a plan that was clearly abandoned is ultimately irrelevant.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

I understand your point, but disagree.  Whatever Trump may have said to Bolton at some point is irrelevant to the ultimate issue of whether or not the President should be removed from office.  What should be dispositive is that the aid ultimately was released, and without getting any pro for that quid.  Whether there was a miscommunication between Bolton and Trump, whether Trump was speaking off the cuff and didn't really mean it, or whether he did mean it but ultimately decided against it, doesn't matter. He did not go through with it.  And delaying aid for a few weeks cannot be the basis for removing him from office.  Especially when there were valid grounds to believe that something truly shady had been going on.

Had the aid actually been cancelled, or had Ukraine actually provided the information before receiving the aid, that might be a different story.  But you don't remove a President from office for abandoning a problematic course of action. 

Why would you have Bolton testify -- particularly as the only witness -- unless his testimony was dispositive on the ultimate question?  How does it look if you drew massive attention to what he has to say, he's credible, but then you acquit anyway?  The best defense has to be that Bolton's testimony about a plan that was clearly abandoned is ultimately irrelevant.

I agree with your analysis, @Maj. Bill Martin.   Here's where we differ.   The value in having Bolton testify is precisely that, as you say, it is ultimately irrelevant to the President's acquittal, but will likely be very relevant to the GOP's efforts to keep the Senate.   It seems increasingly clear to me that the Dems' real objective is to flip the Senate, by calling out GOP Senators as engaged in a nefarious cover-up.    The leak to the NYT creates the conditions for McConnell to call their bluff.    Just have Bolton testify - no one else.   Let him say his piece, and be questioned on the issue of its relevance to the current proceedings.  He will most likely agree that,  given that Trump ultimately listened to his counsel to release the aid without preconditions,  internal discussions regarding courses of action ultimately abandoned can never be adequate grounds for impeachment.   

[Cyber Liberty]

I have a better idea:  Stick to the rules as set, and stop changing the rules after the game begins.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Jazzhead

I agree with your analysis, @Maj. Bill Martin.   Here's where we differ.   The value in having Bolton testify is precisely that, as you say, it is ultimately irrelevant to the President's acquittal, but will likely be very relevant to the GOP's efforts to keep the Senate.   It seems increasingly clear to me that the Dems' real objective is to flip the Senate, by calling out GOP Senators as engaged in a nefarious cover-up.    The leak to the NYT creates the conditions for McConnell to call their bluff.   Just have Bolton testify - no one else.   Let him say his piece, and be questioned on the issue of its relevance to the current proceedings.  He will most likely agree that,  given that Trump ultimately listened to his counsel to release the aid without preconditions,

There's the cardinal sin of litigation -- asking a potentially fatal question when you aren't absolutely sure of the answer.

What if Bolton doesn't agree?  What if he then goes off on a tirade about everything else he thinks Trump did wrong, including giving favors to other leaders (normally referred to as "diplomacy", but....).  What if he says he believes Trump should be removed?  You've given him the soapbox, made his testimony the only testimony that matters, and it completely blows up in your face.  And he's your witness, so you can't even really attack his credibility.  That may actually be enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In any case, I think having Bolton testify credibly, but then voting to acquit anyway, actually looks much worse politically.  "Yes, it was all true, but we don't care."  I think it's much easier/more defensible for a Senator to say "even if Bolton testified, and even if we accepted everything Bolton supposedly said as true, the President ultimately released the aid anyway, and without getting a thing from Ukraine. That reality is why Bolton's testimony didn't matter, and why we didn't call him as a witness."

Just a difference in tactics, I suppose.

[Cyber Liberty]

Springing "new" evidence at the last possible second, before it can be examined, is a standard Democrat tactic.  Since 2016 we saw a couple of tries with this playbook, and the predictable suspects fall for it every time.  First Moore (successfully), then Kavanaugh (unsuccessfully). 

@Jazzhead, stop rewarding them for this tactic!

[libertybele]

@Jazzhead

There's the cardinal sin of litigation -- asking a potentially fatal question when you aren't absolutely sure of the answer.

What if Bolton doesn't agree?  What if he then goes off on a tirade about everything else he thinks Trump did wrong, including giving favors to other leaders (normally referred to as "diplomacy", but....).  What if he says he believes Trump should be removed?  You've given him the soapbox, made his testimony the only testimony that matters, and it completely blows up in your face.  And he's your witness, so you can't even really attack his credibility.  That may actually be enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In any case, I think having Bolton testify credibly, but then voting to acquit anyway, actually looks much worse politically.  "Yes, it was all true, but we don't care."  I think it's much easier/more defensible for a Senator to say "even if Bolton testified, and even if we accepted everything Bolton supposedly said as true, the President ultimately released the aid anyway, and without getting a thing from Ukraine. That reality is why Bolton's testimony didn't matter, and why we didn't call him as a witness."

Just a difference in tactics, I suppose.

While at first I was thinking that Bolton should testify, I have changed my mind @Maj. Bill Martin, I believe you are correct -- right now regardless of what happened yesterday with Bondi (which wasn't afforded any significant reporting by the MSM) Bolton has been made the sole focus and the only testimony that people are going to tune into see.  That is not going to play out well at all for the GOP and Trump.

[Jazzhead]

You may be right @Maj. Bill Martin; I've been assuming that Bolton is ultimately a conservative and a man of integrity who opposes the President's removal from office.   Maybe the compromise position is to have him write that op-ed for the WJS.    I guess the $64,000 question is whether he has an axe to grind after the nasty way the President fired him.   I've been saying all along that the President often turns out to be his own worst enemy.   I would just love to just (i) get this thing the hell over with, and (ii) provide some means for vulnerable GOP Senators to insulate themselves from the charge of "cover up" that that we all know will be coming.     

[Jazzhead]

Springing "new" evidence at the last possible second, before it can be examined, is a standard Democrat tactic.  Since 2016 we saw a couple of tries with this playbook, and the predictable suspects fall for it every time.  First Moore (successfully), then Kavanaugh (unsuccessfully). 

@Jazzhead, stop rewarding them for this tactic!

I guess I am just less afraid than most here to hear what Bolton has to say.   I think he's a good man.   I like the idea of calling the Dems' bluff.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I guess I am just less afraid than most here to hear what Bolton has to say.   I think he's a good man.   I like the idea of calling the Dems' bluff.

@Jazzhead

You may be right...but it's an unnecessary risk that would have spectacularly bad repercussions if it went wrong.

And while I do believe Bolton is a conservative (and I used to really like him), he also advocates for a much more aggressive policy internationally, and clearly clashed with Trump on a policy level.  Trump wants us out of the ME, and Bolton wants us further in.  Then in his book, Bolton apparently also said this, now being reported by the NYT:

John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, privately told Attorney General William P. Barr last year that he had concerns that President Trump was effectively granting personal favors to the autocratic leaders of Turkey and China, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/27/trump-favors-dictators.html

Bolton is very far from an idiot, and there isn't a universe where he could have believed that these things wouldn't hurt the President.  But he chose to throw executive privilege out the window, and decided to make public all these private conversations that would hurt the President.  Whether his motivation is financial, ideological, or just personal pique, there is no way in hell I'd trust him to "say the right thing" about Trump with a microphone in front of his face.  Nor should his personal opinion about what is impeachable be entitled to any more weight than yours, mine, or that of any other citizen.