Horowitz may be the next to go

Trump fired Atkinson out of vengefulness, and he's not afraid to say it out loud

Of course, unlike Trump, Atkinson did nothing to be sued over.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

While you're distracted

President Donald Trump has fired the inspector general for the intelligence community who handled the whistleblower complaint that triggered his impeachment.

Trump informed the Senate intelligence committee on Friday of his decision to fire Michael Atkinson, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

Trump said in the letter that it is "vital" that he has confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general, and "that is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general".

[...]

Atkinson was the first to inform Congress about an anonymous whistleblower complaint last year that described Trump's pressure on Ukraine to investigate Democrat Joe Biden and his son. That complaint prompted a House investigation that ultimately resulted in Trump's impeachment.

In letters to legislators in August and September, Atkinson said he believed the complaint was "urgent" and "credible".

But the acting Director of National Intelligence at the time, Joseph Maguire, said he did not believe it met the definition of "urgent," and tried to withhold the complaint from Congress.

[...]

Trump said in the letter that he would nominate an individual "who has my full confidence" at a later date.

  alJazeera

Any guesses? Maybe he'll leave the position empty like he has with so many others.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Of course, unlike Trump, Atkinson did nothing to be sued over.

UPDATE:

No loyalty, no job

Two Senate aides confirmed to The Hill Monday afternoon that Elaine McCusker’s nomination to be Pentagon comptroller has been withdrawn, news that was first reported by Politico. The White House sent a notice confirming the withdrawal later in the evening.

[...]

McCusker has been acting comptroller since the summer and was officially nominated to the position in November.

Her role as acting comptroller put her in the center of Trump’s decision to withhold $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, a decision that ultimately led to his impeachment.

In emails published by Just Security after a Freedom of Information Act request, McCusker expressed concerns about the legality of withholding the funds.

One exchange showed her at odds with White House Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey. When Duffey told her that it would be the Pentagon’s fault, not the White House’s, if funds weren’t spent by the legally mandated deadline, McCusker replied: “You can’t be serious. I am speechless.”

The Government Accountability Office later determined that withholding the aid violated the law.

[...]

The New York Post reported last month that McCusker’s nomination was in trouble over the Ukraine row. At the time, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) dismissed the report, saying the White House and Pentagon hadn’t told him of a change in the nomination and that he didn’t plan to follow up on an anonymously sourced report.

  The Hill

He should have known better.

And the purging continues.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It will only get worse

Federal prosecutors in Michigan have charged a man with making a death threat against one of the attorneys for a whistleblower who initiated the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, according to newly unsealed court records.

The man, Brittan J. Atkinson, allegedly emailed the attorney in November, calling him a “traitor” who “must die a miserable death.” The attorney, Mark Zaid, confirmed to POLITICO that he received the email the day after Trump held up Zaid’s photo and read some of Zaid’s tweets during a rally.

  Politico

Continuing incitement to violence by the president of the United States against people he doesn't like.

Impeach the motherfucker again. Lock him up.

“All traitors must die miserable deaths,” reads the email to Zaid that was sent on November 7. “Those that represent traitors shall meet the same fate. We will hunt you down and bleed you out like the pigs you are. We have nothing but time, and you are running out of it. Keep looking over your shoulder. We know who you are, where you live, and who you associate with. We are all strangers in a crowd to you.”

[...]

Trump has tweeted about the whistleblower more than five dozen times since September, accusing the person of being part of the “deep state” and alleging that he gave the Intelligence Community inspector general false information. Nothing in the whistleblower’s original complaint, however, has proven inaccurate.

Zaid and his co-counsel on the whistleblower case, Andrew Bakaj, wrote a letter to then Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire in September raising “serious concerns” about their client’s safety following remarks Trump made at the U.N. accusing the whistleblower of being a “spy.”

[...]

To Zaid’s knowledge, the indictment is the first time an individual has been charged with making death threats against him, he said. But it’s far from the first threatening email he and his legal partner Bradley Moss have received since taking on the whistleblower as a client.

“@realDonaldTrump thank you so much for the specific commentary about my firm last night,” Moss tweeted on November 7, the day Atkinson allegedly threatened Zaid. “I woke up to a ton of hate mail and death threats. And I’m not even on this case.”

John Bolton is still a whore

Will the House try subpoenaing him again?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Whatever the traffic will allow

Asked in November if he directed Giuliani to "do anything" in Ukraine, Trump said, "No, I didn't direct him," but went on to call Giuliani a "great corruption fighter."

[...]

The reversal came Thursday in a podcast interview Trump did with journalist Geraldo Rivera.

[...]

"Here's my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy," Trump said, referring to former FBI Director James Comey. Trump explained that he has "a very bad taste" of the US intelligence community, because of the Russia investigation, so he turned to Giuliani.

"So when you tell me, why did I use Rudy, and one of the things about Rudy, number one, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor," Trump said. "But also, other presidents had them. FDR had a lawyer who was practically, you know, was totally involved with government. Eisenhower had a lawyer. They all had lawyers."

  CNN

He was acquitted. He can say it now. He's above the law.

In the week since his acquittal, Trump has taken a series of bold steps to punish his opponents and reward his supporters. He fired several US officials who had testified against him in the impeachment inquiry, and he successfully lobbied the Justice Department to water down its request that his longtime adviser Roger Stone face as many as nine years in prison for lying to Congress.

It will only get worse.

That might disturb some MAGAts.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It will only get worse

It will only get worse

And from Lev Parnas' attorney...

Don't hold your breath, Joe.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

But....her emails

Le it go.

Also, is this a good time to be bringing up email scandals?

Also, this was an "interview" - Hannity did a word association game with Trump, calling out Democrats' names so Trump could trash them. 

He honeymooned in Moscow, but you get the picture. 

Anyway, there was a time when Americans weren't permitted into the Soviet Union, and then when they were, it was an exotic place to go.  And why shouldn't you?  And Trump should be careful if he wants to keep on Putin's good side.

Of course you have, honey. 

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Bingo

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Evidence denied

In the voice of Dick Cheney: So?

The Department of Justice revealed in a court filing late Friday that it has two dozen emails related to the President Donald Trump's involvement in the withholding of millions in security assistance to Ukraine -- a disclosure that came just hours after the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial, paving the way for his acquittal.

  CNN

Aw, gee, just a little too late.  I bet Barr really wanted to get that out earlier.

"The day after DOD issued its June 18 press release announcing $250 million in security assistance funds for Ukraine, President Trump started asking OMB questions about the funding for Ukraine," the House outlined in its impeachment report.

The House noted that the OMB refused to turn over any documents when subpoenaed during the probe, and that emails may exist showing acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney passing along the President's order to halt the aid to Ukraine.

"The Committees also have good-faith reason to believe that the Office of Management and Budget is in possession of and continues to withhold significantly more documents and records responsive to the subpoena and of direct relevance to the impeachment inquiry," the House wrote before it voted to impeach the President for obstruction of Congress.

[...]

The filings from the executive branch came Friday to meet a court-ordered January 31 deadline.

[...]

The filing, released near midnight Friday, marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President's thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June.

Talk about stretching it out until the last minute.

The administration is still blocking those emails from the public and has successfully kept them from Congress.

A lawyer with the Office of Management and Budget wrote to the court that 24 emails between June and September 2019 -- including an internal discussion among DOD officials called "POTUS follow-up" on June 24 -- should stay confidential because the emails describe "communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine."

[...]

A judge had specifically asked for an email-by-email breakdown of what the Justice Department redacted or withheld in Defense Department and OMB emails about the aid, and why it did so, after the Center for Public Integrity sued and got access to them in December through the Freedom of Information Act.

And there will be more.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Everyone was in the loop

Parnas is naming names.  And look who shows up for the first time:  Lindsey Graham.

Phone records, text messages, and other evidence.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Criminal cabal controls the US

Everybody was in the loop.

Even the guy who is supposed to be guarding the reputation of the office of the president.

Both Devin Nunes and Pat Cipollone, were fact witnesses and accomplices in the president's crimes, while both were in roles defending those crimes, and the Republicans don't care.

UPDATE:

This is a richly filled piñata of crimes and impeachable offenses, and not just on the part of the president*. Cipillone was inches from obtaining a clean getaway for his client—and, very likely, a considerable upgrade in his hourly rates. Now, he's is in the grinder as a possible witness to the fact that, as even Lamar! conceded, the president* is as guilty as John Wilkes Booth. This means that, throughout the Senate trial, Cipollone has been misrepresenting himself and the facts of the case right there in John Roberts’s grill for two weeks. Do that in muni court and you can feed your license to the pigeons in the plaza outside.

  Charles P Pierce

Rand Paul should be censured and then run out of politics

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul named the alleged Ukraine intelligence whistleblower Thursday after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts refused to read a question he submitted at President Trump’s impeachment trial that included the person’s purported name.

The conservative Republican left the proceedings to hold an impromptu press conference at which he fingered the person whom right-wing media have named as the CIA operative in the White House who filed a complaint about Trump’s infamous July 25 call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Paul read out his conspiratorial question that Roberts twice refused to read inside the chamber, apparently out of the judge’s respect for federal law protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.

  NY Daily News

Totally disgusting.

The whistleblower’s lawyer, Mark Zaid, declined to comment.

Bradley Moss, a law partner of Zaid, hit back within minutes, calling on Paul to resign.

[...]

Presidential son Donald Trump Jr. called outing the whistleblower a crucial part of his dad’s defense against the impeachment effort led by Rep. Adam Schiff.

Despicable little prick.

Paul (R-Ky.), a fiery defender of Trump, first sought to sneak the whistleblower’s name into the impeachment record on Wednesday night.

Roberts refused to read his question and repeated his refusal when Paul resubmitted it Thursday.

“The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted,” Roberts said.

Under Senate rules, lawmakers are supposed to remain in the chamber while the trial is in session, although some exceptions are made for bathroom and other breaks. It’s unclear if Paul could face any punishment for holding a press conference as the trial continued inside the Senate chamber.

Not likely. And he's probably not the only one who has.

Federal law prohibits retaliating against government workers who file whistleblower complaints. It doesn’t explicitly bar identifying them, although legal experts say anyone publicly disclosing the name of a whistleblower might be opening themselves up to liability for any harm they undergo.

Besides it being simply an unconscionable act of intimidation and a tool of oppression.

Sorry, I missed this December 3 report

Trump defenders say couldn't have been extorting because the Ukrainians didn't even know about the aid being withheld. Although some US diplomats have testified that they did know, the Trump cabal has insisted they didn't. Actually, we have a Ukrainian official weighing in.

As deputy foreign minister, it was Olena Zerkal’s job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world. One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.

“We had this information,” Ms. Zerkal said in an interview. “It was definitely mentioned there were some issues.”

[...]

The Ukrainian presidential administration was copied as a recipient of the cable from the embassy in Washington, she said, adding: “We received it simultaneously.”

[...]

The timing of when Ukraine knew of the hold on the military aid is a critical question in the impeachment hearings in Congress.

Mr. Trump and his allies have also made the timing issue part of his defense. How could Ukrainian officials feel the pressure of the aid freeze, they ask, if they did not know about it when the White House was pushing them to investigate Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., one of Mr. Trump’s biggest challengers in the 2020 American presidential election?

“They didn’t even know the money wasn’t paid,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter last month.

Ms. Zerkal’s account is the first public acknowledgment by a Ukrainian official that senior figures in Kyiv knew about the aid freeze during the Trump administration’s pressure campaign — and that the Zelensky administration sought to keep that fact from surfacing to avoid getting drawn into the American impeachment debate.

She said her own government blocked a trip she had planned to Washington to meet members of Congress in October, worried she would discuss matters related to impeachment and drag its president into an inquiry he has been eager to avoid.

[...]

Mr. Zelensky, whose government is still dependent on the Trump administration for aid and diplomatic backing, has said he did not learn of the aid freeze until before a meeting with Vice President Mike Pence on Sept. 1, though he has been vague about exactly when.

with the aid as early as July 25, the day Mr. Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president by phone and asked him to investigate his rivals.

[...]

Ms. Zerkal, who said she resigned from her post last week to protest her government’s back channel diplomacy with both the Trump administration last summer and Russia this fall, provided an insider’s account of when senior officials in Kyiv learned of the freeze, and how they tried to keep the information from becoming public.

  WaPo

How the hell did I miss this story?

Her account is backed by Laura K. Cooper, the American deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, who said in Congressional testimony during the impeachment inquiry that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United States officials about it. Did anyone bring it up in the House Manager's presentation?

That was the same day Mr. Trump spoke by phone with Mr. Zelensky and asked the Ukrainian leader to do him the “favor” of investigating the activities of Mr. Biden and his son.

[...]

Later, as the impeachment inquiry ramped up in the United States, Mr. Zelensky’s administration tried to squelch information that could embarrass or undercut Mr. Trump, Ms. Zerkal said.

At a meeting in September, Ms. Zerkal said, a senior aide to Mr. Zelensky told her to “keep silent” and avoid news media inquires on any topic.

[...]

“His main message to me was to keep silent, to not comment without permission,” Ms. Zerkal said of the aide to Mr. Zelensky, Andriy Yermak, who asked that she keep a low profile on all matters, not just those related to the United States. “They are in a very tricky situation and they understand this.”

[...]

The Zelensky administration, Ms. Zerkal said, is most concerned about placating Mr. Trump, having decided that the impeachment inquiry will fail in the Senate and that Mr. Trump could be re-elected.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Impeachment trial day 8: questions and answers

Senators aren't allowed to speak during the trial. Instead, they are submitting their questions in writing. The questions will first be fielded through leadership on both sides, who have said their main object is to weed out duplicates or repetitive questions.

  The Hill

I suppose we can guess what their not-main object is.

The questions will then be passed, alternating between parties, to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial.

Roberts will read out the question, which side it is addressed to and which senators submitted it. When duplicative questions are merged, Roberts is expected to read out the name of each senator who originally submitted the questions.

This is silly. If they're going to name the senators asking the questions, why not let the senators read their own question?

"Questions can be directed to House managers or the president’s counsel. Senators can’t ask each other questions," a GOP aide added, outlining how the proceeding will go.

Well that's a relief.

Senators and aides said they expected House Democrats and Trump’s team to take up to five minutes to respond per question — the same amount of time as during the Clinton trial. But that limit wasn’t strictly enforced in 1999.

Roberts referenced then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist laying out the five-minute limit on Tuesday, indicating that he would like to enforce the same standard.

And what happens if the answer isn't actually an answer to the question asked?

Questions from Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Doug Jones (Ala.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) will be under close scrutiny, with the three Democrats viewed as potential swing votes on whether or not to convict or acquit Trump.

Manchin and Jones have described themselves as undecided on Trump's removal, while Sinema, who does not do hallway interviews in the Capitol, has pledged to keep an open mind during the impeachment proceedings.

[...]

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) unveiled nine questions he wants to ask, each of which will focus on top GOP areas of interest including the intelligence community whistleblower whose complaint helped spurred the impeachment inquiry, as well as Hunter Biden.

Things that have nothing to do with Trump's behavior.

Hawley, for example, wants to ask House managers if President Obama was aware of Biden’s work for Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, while his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, was handling Ukraine policy.

What administration are we in, Josh?

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), asked to muse on what questions he had, said he remained curious about why the House didn’t dig into the fight over getting former national security adviser John Bolton’s testimony.

Apparently,for Senator Cramer, the whole shebang began when the articles of impeachment were delivered to the senate.

He added that he was also curious about the House managers' view on Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney.

“You know there's been so much talk about him,” Cramer said. “They really never pursued Rudy Giuliani … I’d like a little more clarity on that.”

You know what? So would I.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Some good ideas

For any Dem candidate.  Not just Joe Biden.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Regarding Bolton's claims - Part 2

This is terribly inconvenient for Republican senators who are frantically searching for ways to vote against hearing from Trump’s former national security adviser and any others who can shed fresh light on Trump’s corrupt conduct.

[...]

[N]ow we have Bolton prepared to testify that Trump himself directly confirmed to him [what Ambassador Sondland testified to in the House hearings], wrecking the “hearsay” defense [against Sondland's testimony]. If Bolton were lying, you’d think Trump would want him to testify under oath, since Bolton’s account is set to appear in a book. Unless the game is to prevent his testimony to the Senate before the vote on Trump’s fate.

[...]

Bolton’s lawyer says he provided the manuscript to the White House on Dec. 30, 2019, for classification review — nearly a month ago.

Importantly, the Times reports that the manuscript might have given Trump’s lawyers a preview of what Bolton would testify.

[...]

Ned Price, a National Security Council official from 2014 to 2017, told me that internal declassification processes in such cases suggest it’s likely Trump’s legal team did indeed access Bolton’s manuscript.

Bolton’s lawyer submitted it to the Records Management Directorate in the White House. Price pointed out that the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, is leading Trump’s impeachment defense, which likely means Cipollone did get his hands on it.

  WaPo

The lawyers need to also testify under oath.

It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying, according to two people familiar with their concerns.

More obstruction of Congress.

Trump’s lawyers have claimed at his trial that “not a single witness” has “testified” to “any connection” between the aid and the investigations. This weasel language is telling: If it’s true that no witness has testified to this, it’s precisely because Trump blocked witnesses who could testify to it, such as Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

We now know Bolton actually would testify to this.

[...]

[T]here is no longer any denying that any GOP senator who goes along with this is willfully and knowingly carrying Trump’s coverup to completion.

When it comes to hearing new witnesses and evidence, GOP senators have no arguments left. And no one is obliged to pretend there’s a shred of legitimacy to whatever excuses they do offer.

More obstruction...

They can do something about that.

Or have your chance to defend yourself at trial?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Denial

President Trump on Monday denied that he told former national security adviser John Bolton that releasing security aid for Ukraine was dependent on the country investigating his political rivals, following a report that Bolton describes such an exchange in his forthcoming book.

  The Hill

Of course he did. And we all know how truthful Trump is. His reputation for honesty is legend.

Democrats didn't say he never met.  They say, correctly, he never invited Zelenskey to the White House to show Russia he had Trump's backing.  Instead, the Russian foreign minister was favored with such a meeting.  

Also, the release of the aid is the key: it wasn't far ahead of schedule.  In fact, Congress had to hastily draw up an extension for the release in order to prevent it from being forfeited.  Also, it was released only after the whistleblower complaint was made public.  Why was it withheld in the first place?  If it were for general corruption of the Ukrine government, what did they do suddenly to rectify the issue  to get the funds released?

All bullshit.  All the time.

Bolton indicated he wouldn't comply with a House request to testify, and a subpoena would have resulted in a prolonged court case.  Witnesses are not limited to House testimony.  The Senate conducts the trial.  Witnesses are called in trials and are not limited to those who gave testimony during the investigation.

The New York Times reported Sunday evening that Bolton wrote in the manuscript of his upcoming book, titled "The Room Where It Happened," that Trump said during an August meeting that he wanted to continue a freeze on the nearly $400 million in security aid for Ukraine until the government there agreed to investigate Biden and other Democrats.

Who else was in that meeting? Ask them, see what they say, or if they refuse to answer.

An attorney representing Bolton said he delivered the manuscript to the White House on Dec. 30, 2019, to be reviewed for classified information.

And similar to the Ukraine funding being withheld, nothing was said until the information was publicized yesterday.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE: