Image 01 Image 03

Democrats ‘Kavanaughing’ Impeachment Trial As Predicted – John Bolton Leak Came as House Case Was Collapsing

Democrats ‘Kavanaughing’ Impeachment Trial As Predicted – John Bolton Leak Came as House Case Was Collapsing

We have seen this show before, it’s all designed to pressure a small number of weak Republican Senators to allow Democrats to turn the Senate into a circus in which the process becomes the punishment.

It has been clear for weeks that the Democrats were seeking to ‘Kavanaugh’ the Senate impeachment trial — to roll out with media help a well-timed series of supposed bombshell accusations whose main purpose was to create a media hysteria to pressure Republican Senators to extend the process.

The process for the nominee, or in the impeachment framework the president, becomes the punishment and the Democrat campaign strategy.

That’s what happened in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Once it because clear that Kavanaugh would be confirmed and the hearings were closed, a series of accusers — Christine Blasey Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez, plus anonymous accusers — were rolled out to reopen the hearings and prolong the process. The accusations were absurd and contradicted by all known evidence, but that was not the point. The Democrats, having invented and honed the skill of Borking nominees, wanted to punish the nominee and damage his legitimacy as a Supreme Court Justice.

It’s happening with the Trump impeachment trial. The House case collapsed during the presentation, but even more so during the Saturday presentation by Republicans, as described in VIDEO: Trump trial team exposed Adam Schiff’s lies and manipulation behind impeachment:

On December 16, 2019, just days after the House voted to impeach but weeks before the House would deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate, I wrote how that strategy was clear, Democrats are going to try to “Kavanaugh” the Impeachment Trial with new accusations:

The most dangerous place on earth, Bob Dole wisely observed, is between Chuck Schumer and the TV cameras.

Not surprisingly, while Mitch McConnell usually gets his way, Schumer gets the headlines and TV coverage.

Schumer did that again today with his demand for a “fair” trial, meaning to Schumer that Democrats get to reopen the investigation of Trump during the trial, including calling witnesses who did not testify, and doing the job the House Democrats failed to do. A do-over….

Schumer and Senate Democrats know that what the House had is not enough to get 20 Republican Senators to vote against Trump — they may not even get one. So the trial takes on a different purpose — to seek evidence and to prolong impeachment investigations for the remainder of the election year based on “new evidence” discovered during the trial.

Byron York astutely observes that Senate Democrats are taking the same approach they took in trying to block Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination:

Call it the Brett Kavanaugh model of impeachment. During the Supreme Court justice’s confirmation process, a hearing had already been held, and Kavanaugh appeared on the way to joining the court. Then, up popped a new allegation, the Christine Blasey Ford story, and Democrats demanded the case be reopened, witnesses be interviewed, evidence be gathered, and time be taken for more investigation. Republicans acceded to those demands, and the Kavanaugh confirmation careened off course for a while before GOP lawmakers finally got it back on track….

… Senate Democrats proved themselves to be misleading and dishonest demagogues during the Kavanaugh hearings. Expect the same at a Senate impeachment trial.

Again on January 16, 2020, just after Democrats delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Lev Parnas is Julie Swetnick, and Dems are trying to ‘Kavanaugh’ the impeachment trial:

Lev Parnas is to the Impeachment Trial as Julie Swetnick was to the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, if Republicans let Democrats get away with it.

Recall that after the Kavanaugh hearings were done, but before the committee vote, Democrats leaked that they had a surprise witness they had known about for several weeks, Christine Blasey Ford. Her claim that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school fell apart when the four people she said were present in the house that night all said they had no memory of such an event — not just the sexual assault, but even of being in the house as a group.

So out of the woodwork came multiple other accusers, particularly Julie Swetnick, represented by then-Democrat-presidential hopeful Michael Avenatti.

Swetnick pushed her ludicrous story out on cable news. The story was that Kavanaugh ran gang rape parties in high school in which men lined up in rape trains. The story was absurd on its face, but Democrats and liberal media treated it as more proof that no vote should be held on Kavanaugh until there were full investigations of all allegations. Swetnick’s claim not only was absurd, her background cast serious doubt on her crebility. Her claims fell apart when she was pressed. But she served Democrats’ purposes.

This is what “to Kavanaugh” something is: to drag a hearing out with serial accusations and accusers so that the process becomes interminable. And this is what is happening with the Democrats’ attempt to remove Trump through impeachment and trial.

First it was Lev Parnas, someone under federal indictment for providing false information. Parnas splashed his opinions about Trump involvement in something nefarious on the conspiracy show Rachel Maddow. And now Parnas has secret tapes. But none of it amounts to anything relevent — Parnas shows that Trump didn’t like or trust the Obama-appointed U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. So what? Trump has said that himself. And Trump like every president has a right to appoint his own ambassadors, so there was nothing wrong with it. A big nothing no more worthy than the flimsy accusations of Ford (disproven by the people she said were witnesses) and bizarro-world accusations of Ramirez and others.

Now it’s John Bolton through a supposed leak of a portion of his upcoming book to the NY Times. The Times story has no quote from the book, no specific time frame, and nothing that supports impeachment. The “bombshell” is that Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says. That headline is all the Times needed to kick off a media feeding frenzy being used to pressure Republicans to allow Bolton and other witnesses the House never bothered to subpoena. But there is almost no support for that headline in the actual article. This is that only part of the article that purports to paraphrase the Bolton book:

In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.

That’s about as specific at The Times article gets, and it doesn’t support the nefarious headline. Assuming it was said, there would be nothing wrong with it. It’s a weaker claim then the serious (but unfounded) accusations against Kavanaugh.

(Added) Alan Dershowitz made following point during his presentation to the Senate tonight:

“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution.”

But we’re in the middle of a media feeding frenzy.

I talked about the Democrats’ ‘Kavanaugh’ strategy on the Chicago’s Morning Answer with Amy Jacobson (no relation) and Dan Proft:

[Transcript is auto-generated, I’ve cleaned it up but it’s still rough in places]

PROFT: We’re pleased to be joined by William Jacobson. He’s a Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. He’s also the founder of the very good legal blog for you, legal eagles like me, He’s President of Legal Insurrection Foundation. Professor Jacobson, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.

WAJ: Thanks for having me on.

PROFT: So, you know, I mean, how do you, what are sort of, excuse me, some of your top lines after, you know, a week of this leading with the first, offerings from the, the defense team on Saturday,

WAJ: I was able to watch the entirety of the two hour presentation by the Republicans on Saturday. And as some of the clips you played indicate it was fairly devastating to the substance of the Democratic case. I think it’s a, it’s not looking good.  And I think that’s one of the reasons why we have now the big bombshell. Like we did in Kavanaugh near the end when it looks like it’s over for the Democrats, all of a sudden there’s some accusation made.

And that’s the New York Times report last night or yesterday on the upcoming Bolton book, which having read that lengthy New York times report, there’s actually almost no substance to it. There’s no quotes from the book. There’s no specific accusations. It’s a conclusion.

And this is exactly what happened in Kavanaugh when the hearings were over, when it looked like he was clearly going to be confirmed, all of the sudden new accusations come out.

And I think that’s why the Republican Senators would be right to be very skeptical about the, what’s going on here and the demand for witnesses because John Bolton is somebody the House could have tried to subpoena. They never actually even subpoenaed him in the House. And the courts could have on an expeditious basis ruled on whether the subpoena was valid.

… So now they’re trying to turn the Senate into an investigatory body and that’s not what the Senate role here is. So I think the Democrats are in a lot of trouble. Their only hope is they can stretch this thing out, get more media bombshells that stretch it out. And I think that’s what they’re about. I think they know there’s no way, based on what we know so far that Trump is going to be removed.

PROFT: Well, I mean, Democrats seem to so desperate. They leaked that Lev Parness, you know, recording over the weekend and they were trying to me try this in the court of public opinion.

WAJ: That’s right. And the Parness tape is really a whole lot of nothing. Trump has publicly said he didn’t like that ambassador. It’s his right to remove an ambassador and to appoint ambassadors. So Lev Parnas  comes out with a tape where Trump says he doesn’t like the ambassador. There’s literally zero news in that tape, but it’s dominated the news media news cycle for 48 hours or 72 hours.

Now this is a replay not just of Kavanaug, but of the Russia Mueller investigation. Almost every three to four days there would be some new bombshell, which amounted to nothing, often was disproven within two or three days, and it was a permanent crisis news cycle. There was always something being rolled out by the media. The New York Times played a huge role in doing that based upon what anonymous people told them….

CNN did it a lot. MSNBC much less, they were more opinion oriented, but there was this permanent permanent crisis news cycle, and that’s what we’re seeing with the impeachment.

But when you get down to it, the Republican two hour presentation was fairly devastating to the Democrats and it wasn’t just devastating on the substance. It was devastating as to the intent of the Democrats because the Democrats want Republican senators to take on good faith that if we just call more witnesses, all we’re really interested in is getting to the truth.

But the Republicans showed that in the 24 hours of presentation to the Senate, the Democrats did not act in good faith because they withheld critical parts of testimony from the witnesses they quoted. So I think … the only question is sometime later this week, are four Republican senators going to vote to call witnesses and turn this thing into a complete circus in the Senate. As it looks at the moment in time, it does not look like they’re going to get four. They might get one or two.

AMY JACOBSON: Yeah. And not just cherry picking witness testimony ….

WAJ: That’s right. And that’s a lot of what goes on here is that they bring in, you know, inapplicable precedent or they misstate what it is… The president probably would win in court on John Bolton’s testimony being subject to executive privilege. I mean, he was about as close to the president as you can get. And if a president is going to be able to confide in his senior, most advisers, he’s got to have, he or she or whoever it happens to be in the future has to have an understanding that that is private. Otherwise you will never speak to your closest advisers. So I think Trump would probably win. I don’t think Trump would win in the sense that Bolton doesn’t have to show up to testify, but I think he would win the, the president once Bolton shows up could assert executive privilege to prevent testimony as to private conversations with the president.

So I think, and I think that’s why the Democrats didn’t go to court. They could have gotten from a district court a fairly quick ruling. I think they probably could have gotten a ruling within two or three weeks and then an appeals court ruling within a week or so after that. So within a couple of months they could have had all the rulings that they needed and the Supreme Court would have, would have ruled on a temporary basis as to what would happen.

So this notion that it would be years and years and years before they’d get a ruling on this witnesses I think is false. So they didn’t even try and they didn’t try because I think ultimately they knew that the key people they claim to have wanted Mulvaney, Bolton and a couple of others are so close and so senior in the administration that they never would have been allowed to testify anyway.

AMY JACOBSON: The other thing, just going back to the Lev Parness bombshell, audio, video that  surfaced over the weekend. And so that was from a dinner in April of 2018 and he was saying, get rid of Marie Evanovich. The ambassador will get rid of her tomorrow. Wait a second. That’s a year before Joe Biden announced he was running for president. So I guess president Trump’s perspective with respect to your Ukrainian policy wasn’t all tied up in quote unquote getting dirt on a political opponent.

WAJ: Now Trump doesn’t like people who are disloyal to him and who don’t like him. And the reports he was getting, whether they’re true or not, is that this ambassador was disloyal to him, was an Obama hold over, was undermining his policies. And he had every right as president to say, I want an ambassador who actually supports my policies. And I think he was entitled to that. And the fact that as you, as you indicate a year earlier, he expressed that view actually hurts the Democrats because it shows it wasn’t tied into Biden running for president because he wasn’t even running at that point and it wasn’t even clear he would run.

* * *

I would expect that tomorrow there’ll be some new nonsensical bombshell.

I mean it really, people need to read that New York times article. There isn’t a single quote in there from the book. It’s what certain people who say they’ve seen the book, how they characterize it, and then the New York times characterizes it. It’s not even third-hand hearsay because nobody told the New York Times a quote from the book, so it’s, and this is now dominating it. This comes out at a critical juncture just like it did for Kavanaugh. This is the Democrat playbook on how to oppose Trump. Use the media to your advantage to roll things out and disrupt what’s going on.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Interesting thought tonight. Since the Senate adjourned,can the President make Recess Appointments? I would love to hear feedback on this.

    He’s smarter than that. It would be like a metermaid on trial, ticketing all of the juror’s vehicles.

    Milhouse in reply to TempeJeff. | January 28, 2020 at 1:15 am

    No, he certainly cannot. The senate adjourns every night. That does not create a recess. Exactly how long an adjournment creates a recess is not clear; it’s presumptively at least ten days, but certainly longer than three days (which is the shortest adjournment for which the Senate needs the House’s permission)

Sleazy Democrats.

Schumer did that again today with his demand for a “fair” trial

This slimy weasel knows better.

A “fair trial” is what American jurisprudence owes the defendant, not the prosecution.

    DaveGinOly in reply to tom_swift. | January 27, 2020 at 11:17 pm

    I was going to say the converse – the Dems’ idea of a “fair trial” is one in which the prosecution gets everything it wants, and in which the defendant must prove his innocence. These are actually very dangerous people we’re dealing with, because they’ve long ago convinced a large number of Americans that this is how it’s supposed to work, and I think they’re beginning to believe it themselves.

    inspectorudy in reply to tom_swift. | January 27, 2020 at 11:33 pm

    I think you and Val have it all wrong. Of course, the Dems are sleazy. That was sleaze is but it is the RINOs that are truly despicable sleaze. They are the ones that know that this entire charade is unconstitutional and based on nothing, but NOW they need to know what the Bolton book might say. Who made Bolton the paragon of truth and wisdom? Who says it won’t be another he said-she said moment? There appears to be no one who can verify whatever he claims so it’s just one more nothingburger. But the four stooges seem hell-bent on dragging this out for several months. They are the real sleaze. Blame them. The Dems do what Dems always do and that is lie and cheat.

      Why is it so hard for so many commenters here to grasp? As bad as the Dems are, it’s the Republicans who refuse to win! This is the same corrupt Senate that passed ObamaCare and so many other horrible bills while in the majority. They’ve been the enablers and they are still the same Republicans. Why are we so easily seduced by these polymorphs?

      Once Team Trump/McCarthy retake the House, our next task will be to repopulate the Republican Senate majority. They now represent the final establishment stronghold. We are just two GOP votes away from catastrophe. I am very sure the Democrats would never allow themselves to be consistently choose to be in this position. Democrats GRAB power. Republicans SURRENDER power even when we thrust it on them.

Guess who was in charge of reviewing Bolton’s book for the government? You cannot make this stuff up!

    VenturaCapitalist in reply to MattMusson. | January 27, 2020 at 10:27 pm

    How are these dual-loyalty dirtbags STILL on the NSC?

      Because nobody other than Trump has the fucking balls to get rid of them.

        VenturaCapitalist in reply to Olinser. | January 28, 2020 at 12:07 am

        Yes, I hired Trump to kick ass, not to kiss it.
        But… ummm… the Obama termites still there.

          Educate yourself on the civil service laws. Start with the Pendleton Act.

          “The Pendleton Act of 1883 is a federal law enacted by the United States, which established that federal government positions should be awarded to candidates based on their merit, not based on with which party their political affiliations lie. To that end, the Act set up a system of civil service exams, in order to limit considerations of political affiliations or support. Similarly, the Act made it illegal for government officials to be fired or demoted for political reasons, and it prohibits campaign donations from being solicited on any property that is deemed to belong to the Federal government.”

          Vindman, since he is in the military, is something of a gray area. However, most of the Deep State is covered by some form of that definition, and until Congress repeals it, any move the President makes against any of these termites that aren’t Senate confirmed positions, can turn around and use this and several other laws to tie up the dismissal in court for years…. and get paid for it.

          Replying to SDN –

          “Vindman, since he is in the military, is something of a gray area.” Yes and no. He is subject to the lawful orders of the Commander in Chief. He can easily be reassigned to the Pentagon or Fort Wainwright.

          Also replying to SDN:

          The Pendleton Act requires positions to be awarded on the basis of merit?!? How quaint. Everyone knows that in our more enlightened era we award positions as needed to achieve our diversity goals (i.e., for political reasons).

          According to our Democrat betters, “merit” is simply ill-disguised racism.

          bhwms: Yes, he can. Of course, there’s no reason that can’t b tied up in court too. The more likely reason is that it WILL apply to his twin (the book reviewer), and as we’ve seen with folks like Brennan, you can’t take away the Rolodex. Trump’s only got so much time and political capital to burn.

          Corky: precisely. But as long as the law is on the books, it’s available for selective enforcement, a tried and true socialist tactic.

    On TCTH some think that the leak was a sort of trap. That the pages were placed in the book so that leakers could be frreted out.

JusticeDelivered | January 27, 2020 at 9:25 pm

There really need to be counterstrikes, make the people behind this sorry.

Is this a criminal conspiracy? What causes for action?

Bolton doesn’t matter.
Whatever came up in conversation between Bolton and Trump is just fine. That is conversation. Kicking ideas around is nothing.
What matters is what Trump did.

I said in a thread earlier today, Bolton is trying to take Comey’s place in the most hated person on both sides contest. I once respected him and now his career will be a punchline.

VenturaCapitalist | January 27, 2020 at 10:24 pm

1. Nobody knows what Bolton says in the book; he could totally exonerate Trump.
2. The Slimes quite possibly totally fabricated the whole story; there may be NO NSC leaker at all.

Don’t know the truth, but I think it’s reasonable to suspect the democrats have been set up, and this is all a canary trap.

Justice delivered, I wonder.

Really. I wonder.

I used to deliver justice on behalf of the United States of America.

Riding a bike called the Hodaka Combat Wombat. No, really, that was the name of the motorcycle. Look it up. It beats the hell out of the alternative; the Dirt Squirt.

Try putting the fear of God into someone when you are riding the Combat Wombat. I could do it, but I figure it had something to do with my personality.

Justice delivered, I wonder.

Really. I wonder.

I used to deliver justice on behalf of the United States of America.

Riding a bike called the Hodaka Combat Wombat. No, really, that was the name of the motorcycle. Look it up. It beats the hell out of the alternative; the Dirt Squirt.

Try putting the fear of God into someone when you are riding the Combat Wombat. I could do it, but I figure it had something to do with my personality.

OK, the Hodaka Combat Wombat was during my formative years.


This is important.

Johnny Cash. A boy named Sue.

“Life ain’t easy for a boy named Sue.”

Republicans had a good day Monday bracketed by Judge Starr’s opening remarks and Alan Dershowitz’s concluding history of executive impeachment’s development by the Founders, history of its use, and crystal clear explanation of the legal requirements for its use. That the process took place in the staid, somber Senate Chamber under the watchful eye of the Chief Justice added to the gravity of the event and, perhaps most importantly, there will be a record of every word uttered for future generations. These are all important. That said, what’s missing is emotion.

By failing to conduct a proper, complete investigation in the House, much in secret, denying both accuser and witness testimony there, and trying to shift those to the ‘proper,’ controlled procedures of a trial in the staid atmosphere of the Senate chamber, the process has been robbed of emotion, made sterile.

All the histrionics, disingenuousness, and outright blather notwithstanding that were exhibited during the Kavanaugh hearings, nothing exposed to the public Democrats and their fraudulent actions and outright dishonesty better than the raw emotions exhibited then and there. House Democrats, by their manipulation of the impeachment process have hidden these from public view here. Alan Dershowitz’s concluding remarks were excellent and fit the time and place perfectly. That said, here we will be denied the opportunity for the spontaneous emotionally charged equivalent of Lindsey Graham II’s Kavanaugh comments. This relieves the pressure on the likes of Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, et al, and is exactly as intended by Democrats. I get it, but It is our loss.

“…if Republicans let Democrats get away with it.” – CBS News

“So I think … the only question is sometime later this week, are four Republican senators going to vote to call witnesses and turn this thing into a complete circus in the Senate. As it looks at the moment in time, it does not look like they’re going to get four. They might get one or two.” – WAJ

The ball is completely in the Republicans’ court. Forget about the fact that “heads on pikes” was uttered by Shifty Schiff. It’s not a GOP leadership. It’s OUR threat. We’ve been making it for yours and this may be our last chance to kick/push/nuke them over the goal line.


The ball is completely in the Republicans’ court. Forget about the fact that “heads on pikes” was uttered by Shifty Schiff. It’s not [the] GOP leadership [doing the threatening]. It’s OUR threat. We’ve been making it for [years, “torches and pitchforks”,] and this may be our last chance to kick/push/nuke them over the goal line.

So was this leak coordinated through the National Security Council?

The Swamp is still working hard.

If I remember correctly, at the end of the Obama administration they converted/embedded several political appointees as civil service positions. the civil service act doesn’t protect from malfeasance that they could be removed on. Lt Col Vindman, if everything I read is remotely true should be investigated on possible espionage.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 28, 2020 at 2:44 pm

What does this mean????

John Bolton’s Close Ally Fred Fleitz Turns Against Him, Charging That His Book Is Unethical