Posted on

John Bolton’s Lies Damage Everyone, Especially The American People. He Doesn’t Care.

Most Americans don’t have time for the kind of drama that unfolds in Washington D.C. It’s like a twisted soap opera, where the characters range from the unscrupulous media, pesky hangers-on, some life-long parasites in the bureaucracy, and the powerful politicians.

The drama unfolding around John Bolton’s new book just months before the election reveals the establishment’s seething anger at the American people who voted for President Donald Trump and is far more important than people realize.

The former National Security Advisor’s soon-to-be-released memoir — The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir contains classified information. It was strategic, of course. Everything about the book, including its release date was planned. The fact that Bolton didn’t testify during the impeachment hearings was also calculated. If what he says is true about President Trump, why didn’t he testify? He didn’t testify because it’s all lies. Writing a book doesn’t require Bolton to be under oath and in the end he figured it would be his word against Trump.

I used to respect Bolton for his long years of service to our nation but now I see him for what he is a backstabbing liar intent on taking down a president he had given accolades to on the world stage.

That scenario happens frequently in Washington D.C.

There’s a saying. “if you want a friend in Washington D.C., get a dog.” Sad but somewhat true. Just look at the tweet with a video compilation of Bolton below by Dan Scavino.

Bolton, however, didn’t plan this battle against Trump alone. He joined forces with the Rhinos, long time political diplomats, politicians, and bureaucrats in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

They golf together, go on vacation together, misuse your tax dollars without ever thinking about the grueling hours you put into your work to make a life for your family. They dine at the best restaurants and calculate how to take the disruptor down. They then laugh as they leak their lies to the Washington D.C. elite media that despises you for voting for him and then watch many lap it up without question.

This group of life-long politicos cares only about themselves and their legacy. They are playing for keeps and to retain power. They use the American people as pawns in their game. We are the chess pieces that they attempt to move.

Bolton is part of that and that’s why the book

And that’s why the book’s release comes just months before the election. It’s crucial for their continuing disinformation campaign against this administration and it’s lasted now for nearly four years.

Trump is surrounded by scoundrels. He knows it and keeps fighting back. It can’t be easy.

Department of Justice prosecutors are thinking about prosecuting Bolton. They should and will. But Bolton knew that it would come to this and he was prepared for the battle.

In the end, all he wants is to drive his political spear into Trump for firing him and aid the President’s enemies in defeating him come November.

Don’t be a pawn of these unscrupulous people.

All they want is to remain relevant. Their self-worth is based on their ability to stay in the limelight – meaning they want your attention, need your accolades and once in a while during an election year, they’ll remember you by talking about the hard-working middle class and what they need to do to help you out.

However, that doesn’t mean when they walk down to shake your hands at a rally or kiss your babies on the cheek that they’d want to actually be your friend or really care about your plight in life. No, they don’t.

For the most part, the majority of them are self-serving. I should know.

Of course, that’s not everyone in Washington D.C. I don’t want to paint broad strokes with one brush but it’s difficult for people working in the bubble to understand life outside it.

As for President Trump, since the moment I met him in 2016, I knew he was different. I was one of the few that believed he was going to win the election, even on election day when The New York Times said Hillary Clinton would win with 85 percent of the vote.

I spoke to the people coming to see him at the rallies during the 2016 election. Thousands of people would line up and the overflows were huge. In fact, it’s no different today. I particularly remember Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania and al the wonderful people who showed up to be a part of the democratic process.

I spoke with supporters that were Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. All of them felt the same about President Trump. They believed he cared about them, they believed he listened to them and they believed that his word meant something.

The American people were right and that’s why Trump won the election.

Now he is battling for America that he promised the electorate. But his enemies, which now include Bolton, are fighting him with everything in their political arsenal.

Of course, no one is perfect. But Trump cares about the American people. I have personally seen it, spoken with those who’ve worked for him and he’s demonstrated it through his policy and actions.

The elitist just can’t handle what Trump is doing and how he has exposed the decades of lies. He fulfills his campaign promises, while the more groomed politicians and bureaucrats make never-ending unobtainable promises, creating false complicated roadmaps that they say can never be achieved.

This Army of never-Trump activists has spewed lies and divided our nation. They don’t care about you or your families. However, they do want to send you a message: outsiders, especially disrupters are not welcome.

Bolton is one of those Washington D.C. parasites. He thought he could play Trump like a fiddle but in the end, he will lose. The American people are too smart to be fooled.

Posted on

Elizabeth Warren is in trouble if she doesn’t do well in New Hampshire

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Elizabeth Warren’s Oval Office aspirations are on the line in New Hampshire, where another middling performance after Iowa could deal a significant blow to her campaign’s momentum and her chances of winning the Democratic nomination.

“She has to win,” said veteran pollster John Zogby. “If she can’t do well in her next-door state that in itself could be a fatal blow.”

More than halfway through the weeklong sprint to Tuesday’s first-in-the-nation primary, Warren’s campaign is showing signs of trouble.

The Massachusetts senator landed in the Granite State Tuesday claiming she was locked in a “tight, three-way race” with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Iowa.

But as the results trickled in from the chaotic caucus, Warren ended up trailing eight points behind Sanders and Buttigieg. Mentions of the Hawkeye State disappeared from her stump speech. Her campaign pulled ad buys in Nevada and South Carolina to conserve funds, and sent out an email saying Warren was being outspent on New Hampshire’s airwaves. A new reality appeared to be setting in.

“There are a lot of folks who are going to talk about what’s not winnable, what can’t be done, and definitely about who can’t do it,” Warren told supporters during a canvass launch Saturday at Manchester Community College. “They’re going to talk about it right up until we get in that fight, we persist and we win.”

Strategists, pollsters and voters view Warren’s situation in the Granite State as a bit more dire.

“She must come in first or second. If she comes in third, her campaign is over,” said Republican strategist Ryan Williams, a former Mitt Romney aide. “If you can’t come in first or second being the neighboring state senators from Massachusetts in New Hampshire, your argument is shot.”

Romney was “supposed to win New Hampshire” in 2008, Williams continued. “We came in second after having led in the polls for many months. It just knocked the wind out of our sails.”

Posted on

Alan Dershowitz says Elizabeth Warren ‘doesn’t understand the law’ after she criticizes his presentation

“Warren doesn’t understand the law,” he tweeted Tuesday. “My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me.”

Dershowitz alleged that Warren, his former colleague at Harvard Law School, “willfully mischaracterized what I said,” adding that “it’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law.”

The pointed comments from Dershowitz come after Warren told reporters that his lengthy argument on the Senate floor Monday night was nonsensical. Dershowitz used his presentation to assert that even if Trump “were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed matter in this case, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power.”

He added: “Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power, it’s part of the way foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time.”

It’s unusual to hear an attorney on one of the legal teams in an impeachment trial directly criticize the senators who are acting as jurors, but Dershowitz’s comments only add to the partisan tensions that have plagued Trump’s trial.

Last week, Trump’s legal team slammed House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat who is one of the House impeachment managers, for accusing Republican senators of being complicit in a cover-up of Trump’s behavior by voting against having witnesses. On Friday, GOP senators themselves reacted negatively to Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who’s the lead impeachment manager, quoting from a news report that stated a Trump adviser had told Republican senators they would face dire repercussions for crossing the President.
The presence of Dershowitz on Turmp’s legal team was a surprise announcement just before the impeachment trial began. Trump was especially fixated on having Dershowitz, a controversial defense attorney, on his legal team but Dershowitz had been telling his own associates he didn’t want to participate in the trial, a source who is familiar with these conversations told CNN.

White House officials had applied a lot of pressure over the last several weeks to convince Dershowitz to join the team, sources familiar with the attorney’s appointment said.

His short tenure defending Trump, however, has been largely defined by a series of contradictory statements from his past.

Earlier this month, he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he is “much more correct right now” in his current views on what qualifies a president for impeachment than in his nearly opposite views during the Bill Clinton impeachment.

“I didn’t do research back then, I relied on what professors said … because that issue was not presented in the Clinton impeachment,” Dershowitz said. “Everybody knew that he was charged with a crime, the issue is whether it was a hard crime. Now the issue is whether a crime or criminal-like behavior is required.”

He continued, “I’ve done the research now — I wasn’t wrong (at the time), I am just far more correct now than I was then. I said you didn’t need a technical crime back then. I still don’t think you need a technical crime.”

CNN’s Daniella Diaz, Caroline Kelly and Jamie Ehrlich contributed to this report.

Posted on

Joe Biden’s ‘conspiracy theory’ memo to U.S. media doesn’t match the facts

Former vice president Joe Biden’s extraordinary campaign memo this week imploring U.S. news media to reject the allegations surrounding his son Hunter’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company makes several bold declarations.

The memo by Biden campaign aides Kate Bedingfield and Tony Blinken specifically warned reporters covering the impeachment trial they would be acting as “enablers of misinformation” if they repeated allegations that the former vice president forced the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden worked as a highly compensated board member.

Biden’s memo argues there is no evidence that the former vice president’s or Hunter Biden’s conduct raised any concern, and that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s investigation was “dormant” when the vice president forced the prosecutor to be fired in Ukraine.

The
memo
calls the allegation a “conspiracy theory”  (and, in full disclosure, blames my reporting for
the allegations surfacing last year.)

But
the memo omits critical impeachment testimony and other evidence that paint a
far different portrait than Biden’s there’s-nothing-to-talk-about-here rebuttal.

Here
are the facts, with links to public evidence, so you can decide for yourself.

Fact: Joe Biden
admitted to forcing Shokin’s firing in March 2016
.

It
is irrefutable, and not a conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden bragged in
this 2018 speech
to a foreign policy group that he threatened in March 2016
to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev if then-Ukraine’s president Petro
Poroshenko didn’t immediately fire Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be
leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said:
‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting
the money,’” Biden told the 2018 audience in recounting what he told Poroshenko

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place
someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations
event.

Fact: Shokin’s prosecutors were actively investigating
Burisma when he was fired.

While some news organizations cited by the Biden memo have reported
the investigation was “dormant” in March 2016, official files released by the
Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office, in fact, show there was substantial investigative
activity in the weeks just before Joe Biden forced Shokin’s firing.

The corruption investigations into Burisma and its founder began
in 2014. Around the same time, Hunter Biden and his U.S. business partner Devon
Archer were added
to Burisma’s board
, and their Rosemont Seneca Bohais firm began receiving regular
$166,666 monthly payments, which totaled nearly $2 million a year. Both banks
records seized by the FBI
in America and Burisma’s
own ledgers in Ukraine
confirm these payments.

To put the payments in perspective, the annual amounts paid by
Burisma to Hunter Biden’s and Devon Archer’s Rosemont Seneca Bohais firm were 30
times the average median annual household income for everyday Americans.

For a period of time in 2015, those investigations were stalled as Ukraine was creating a new FBI-like law enforcement agency known as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau ((NABU) to investigate endemic corruption in the former Soviet republic.

There was friction between NABU and the prosecutor general’s office for a while. And then in September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt demanded more action in the Burisma investigation. You can read his speech here. Activity ramped up extensively soon after.

In December 2015, the prosecutor’s files show, Shokin’s office
transferred the evidence it had gathered against Burisma to NABU for investigation.

In early February 2016, Shokin’s office secured a court order
allowing prosecutors to re-seize some of the Burisma founder’s property, including
his home and luxury car, as part of the ongoing probe.

Two weeks later, in mid-February 2016, Latvian law enforcement sent
this alert
to Ukrainian prosecutors flagging several payments from Burisma
to American accounts as “suspicious.” The payments included some monies to Hunter
Biden’s and Devon Archer’s firm. Latvian
authorities recently confirmed
it sent the alert.

Shokin told both me and ABC News that just before he was fired under pressure from Joe Biden he also was making plans to interview Hunter Biden.

Fact: Burisma’s lawyers in 2016 were pressing U.S.
and Ukrainian authorities to end the corruption investigations.

Burisma’s main U.S. lawyer John Buretta acknowledged in this
February 2017 interview
with a Ukraine newspaper that the company remained under
investigation in 2016, until he negotiated for one case to be dismissed and the
other to be settled by payment of a large tax penalty.

Documents
released under an open records lawsuit
show Burisma legal team was
pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to end the corruption allegations
against the gas firm and specifically invoked Hunter Biden’s name as part of
the campaign. You can read those documents here.

In addition, immediately after Joe Biden succeeded in getting
Shokin ousted, Burisma’s lawyers sought to meet with his successor as chief
prosecutor to settle the case. Here
is the Ukrainian prosecutors’ summary memo
of one of their meetings with
the firm’s lawyers.

Fact: There
is substantial evidence Joe Biden and his office knew about the Burisma probe and
his son’s role as a board member
.

The New York Times reported in this December 2015 article that the Burisma investigation was ongoing and Hunter Biden’s role in the company was undercutting Joe Biden’s push to fight Ukrainian corruption. The article quoted the vice president’s office.

In addition, Hunter Biden acknowledged in
this interview
he had discussed his Burisma job with his father on one
occasion and that his father responded by saying he hoped the younger Biden
knew what he was doing.

And when America’s new ambassador to Ukraine was being confirmed
in 2016 before the Senate she was specifically
advised to refer questions
about Hunter Biden, Burisma and the probe to Joe
Biden’s VP office, according to these State
Department documents
.

Fact: Federal
Ethics rules requires government officials to avoid taking policy actions affecting
close relatives.

Office
of Government Ethics rules
require all government officials to recuse
themselves from any policy actions that could impact a close relative or cause
a reasonable person to see the appearance of a conflict of interest or question
their impartiality.

“The impartiality rule requires an employee to consider appearance
concerns before participating in a particular matter if someone close to the employee
is involved as a party to the matter,” these rules state. “This requirement to
refrain from participating (or recuse) is designed to avoid the appearance of favoritism
in government decision-making.”

Fact: Multiple
State Department officials testified the Bidens’ dealings in Ukraine created the
appearance of a conflict of interest
.

In House impeachment testimony, Obama-era State Department officials declared the juxtaposition of Joe Biden overseeing Ukraine policy, including the anti-corruption efforts, at the same his son Hunter worked for a Ukraine gas firm under corruption investigation created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In fact, deputy assistant secretary George Kent said he was so
concerned by Burisma’s corrupt reputation that he blocked
a project
the State Department had with Burisma and tried to warn Joe
Biden’s office
about the concerns about an apparent conflict of interest.

Likewise, the House Democrats’ star impeachment witness, former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovich, agreed the Bidens’ role in Ukraine created an ethic issue. “I think that it could raise the appearance of a conflict of interest,” she testified. You can read her testimony here.

Fact: Hunter Biden acknowleged he
may have gotten his Burisma job solely because of his last name
.

In this
interview last summer
, Hunter Biden said it might have been a “mistake” to
serve on the Burisma board and that it was possible he was hired simply because
of his proximity to the vice president.

“If
your last name wasn’t Biden, do you think you would’ve been asked to be on the
board of Burisma?,” a reporter asked.

“I
don’t know. I don’t know. Probably not, in retrospect,” Hunter Biden
answered. “But that’s — you know — I don’t think that there’s a lot of
things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden.”

Fact: Ukraine
law enforcement reopened the Burisma investigation in early 2019, well before
President Trump mentioned the matter to Ukraine’s new president Vlodymyr
Zelensky
.

This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal: four months before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder.

The effort began independent of Trump or his lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s legal work. In fact, it was NABU – the very agency Joe Biden and the Obama administration helped start – that recommended in February 2019 to reopen the probe.

NABU
director Artem Sytnyk made
this announcement
that he was recommending a new notice of suspicion be opened
to launch the case against Burisma and its founder because of new evidence
uncovered by detectives.

Ukrainian officials said that new evidence included records suggesting a possible money laundering scheme dating to 2010 and continuing until 2015.

A month
later in March 2019, Deputy Prosecutor General Konstantin Kulyk officially
filed this
notice of suspicion
re-opening the case.

And
Reuters recently quoted Ukrainian officials as saying the ongoing
probe was expanded
to allegations of theft of public funds.

The implications of this timetable are significant to the Trump impeachment trial because the president couldn’t have pressured Ukraine to re-open the investigation in July 2019 when Kiev had already done so on its own, months earlier.

For a complete
timeline
of all the key events in the Ukraine scandal, you can click here.

Posted on

Nancy Pelosi Doesn’t Rule Out New Articles of Impeachment Against Trump or Subpoenaing John Bolton

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi left open the possibility that the House of Representatives could file new articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, but expressed confidence in the case she plans to send over to the Senate this week.

Pelosi answered several questions Sunday morning on ABC’s This Week, including one submitted in real time by the president himself, which saw her defending the House’s case against Trump. She did not rule out a future subpoena to have former national security adviser John Bolton testify in addition to her not excluding the possibility the House may file more articles of impeachment if the Senate botches the trial.

The House speaker defended her controversial decision to hold onto the articles of impeachment, saying it “produced a positive result” of demanding documents and witnesses from a reluctant Republican Senate.

Pelosi repeatedly stated her faith in the case that she said will be sent to the Senate this week, but also made clear the trial is by no means the end of the fight against Trump.

“You said he’s [Trump] violating the Constitution again and again. Do you think it’s possible that the House might have to file new articles of impeachment?” ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked the House Speaker.

“Well, let’s just see what the Senate does. The ball will be in their court soon and as I say, we think the American people have been very fair about saying ‘yes we do want to see witnesses,'” Pelosi replied.

When Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi to respond to a live Twitter question from Trump, the California Democrat laughed if off saying, “I don’t like to spend too much time on his crazy tweets because everything he says is a projection.”

In regards to Bolton, who recently stated he is open to testifying before Congress, Pelosi did not rule out moving to subpoena him if the Senate fails to bring him in as a witness.

“If the Senate does not subpoena John Bolton and other witness, will the House move to subpoena?” Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi.

“Well, it’s not excluded…but we’ll see what they do. But we do think there’s enough evidence to remove the president from office,” she replied.

Speaking with Fox News Saturday night, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Pelosi “gave in,” and that the Senate trial will only last days, not week. Graham doubled down on his December claim that he won’t “pretend” to be a fair juror in the Senate trial against Trump.

“She’s not going to run the Senate, she gave in, and I think this hurt her, it undercut the argument that impeachment is about necessity, impeachment is about revenge,” Graham said.


Nancy Pelosi said the House could file new articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, but expressed confidence in the case she plans to send over to the Senate this week.
Screenshot: ABC News | Twitter