When it seemed that investigators in the House could proceed without trial, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, somewhat distressed, demanded that they make an extra effort. Here is what happened, as well as other news on Friday to conclude a week of awful indictment investigation.
Bolton, according to his lawyer, has information that may interest you. He attended "many meetings and relevant conversations that have not been discussed in the testimonials so far".
Bolton returns in the testimonies, in particular, of the former White House advisor on Russia, Fiona Hill, who quoted him directly, describing the foreign policy of the shadow of the United States. US ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, and White House acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, as a "drug case."
Why the show?
My theory: Bolton is a true neo-believer in a strong executive. It is therefore logical that he alone does not want to contradict a claim of the privilege of the White House leadership and cooperate with the impeachment investigators.
But who knows what he's going to say finally. And it's a safe bet that someone who has always supported Bolton's executive power will not think that President Donald Trump has acted inappropriately, even if he is willing to help eliminate the odds. 39 other members of the administration.
Trump and Giuliani keep in touch
The last known face-to-face meeting between Trump and Giuliani took place on Oct. 12, when they met for a lunch on the Trump Golf Course in Virginia. A person close to the White House said that their discussion was friendly and focused primarily on politics.
A familiar person said that at the end of October, Trump had called Giuliani about once a day. Another familiar person stated that the president liked Giuliani's company and discussed with him topics that went beyond legal issues.
Also at the center of everything: Mick Mulvaney
The analysis of Phil below is the most important thing you are reading today:
No lines for Trump?
The Republicans have told us time and time again that there is no direct link with Trump, who would link frozen aid to the thrust of investigations. Assumptions Hypotheses. Connect the dots, but no direct line.
This is where Hill's and Vindman's statements begin to change our understanding of things.
At the meeting of July 10 with the highest Ukrainian officials, Hill and Vindman expressing almost verbatim, Sondland informed the group that he had reached an agreement with Mulvaney on the need for Zelensky to proceed to inquiries before any meeting of the White House. arranged.
Hill (p.69): "Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, on my arrival, was talking about the conclusion of an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians they were going to open investigations. "
Testimony of Vindman
Vindman (p.29): So, Ambassador Sondland explained quite quickly how – you know, these inquiries were – or the result of those inquiries to ensure that this meeting was held.
Q: Do you understand how he came to believe that this product was necessary?
Vindman: I heard that it had been coordinated with the White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Mick Mulvaney.
Throughout Hill's testimony, she recounts Sondland's close relationship with Mulvaney, whom he boasted and often used outside the traditional channels used by an ambassador (Vindman also strikes on this point.)
Mulvaney froze the help
Add to that: Several witnesses said that without ever being able to explain why security assistance to Ukraine had occurred, an anonymous manager of the Office of Management and Budget of the White House had said that she had come under the direction of Mulvaney, who operated under Trump's direction. Hill also confirmed this claim by saying that although she had never learned that the President had personally suspended the aid, "I learned that OMB and Mick Mulvaney froze."
Did Mulvaney become a thug or did he plan on Trump?
To be clear: the "deliverable" in exchange for a meeting at the White House and the suspension of US security assistance are two separate things, at two different times in the timeline. But Mulvaney's central role in both cases highlights the very clear role that the interim chief of staff has played at the center of almost everything. Does this directly involve the president? No, but the idea that Mulvaney was acting like a thug in this regard, given the President's very clear and very clear concerns about Ukraine, is difficult to reconcile.
My add: There is an obvious line to Trump
I add that Phil adds that whenever someone tells you that there is no direct line with the chairman, you must indicate that the transcript of the letter is correct. phone call is a pretty direct line.
What we learned from Hill and Vindman
Our reading team found these nuggets in the transcripts.
- The Ukraine "did not interfere in our elections in 2016"
- The advisers tried to convince Trump that the theory of the Ukraine 2016 interference was false
- security assistance was held at the direction of the office of the chief of staff
- explained why Vindman was upset by the discussions of a presidential meeting
- was worried about what Giuliani was doing "might not be legal"
- put the transcription of Ukraine on a classified system was not "appropriate"
- warned of "the opening of the season on our diplomats"
- Sondland and the US special envoy to Ukraine at the time, Kurt Volker, have requested the opening of an investigation in exchange for a meeting at the White House
- called the way to release the security help "extraordinarily corrosive"
- The July appeal "resulted in" Giuliani "in some sort of official role"
- argued that he "does not take a rocket scientist" to see how Trump would benefit from an investigation into Joe Biden
- legislators argue over the whistleblower
- said that there was no "malicious intent" to conceal anything in the transcript of Trump's Ukraine appeal
- said that Ukraine was interested in a meeting and not by help, in exchange for an investigation
Trump blurts out
Trump and the Republicans do not want to cooperate on the indictment investigation, but sympathetic representatives of the White House are meeting to ensure that Americans will be heard at public hearings next week only by people like Hill, Vindman, the highest US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, and others worried about Trump and Ukraine.
In other words, we may only be able to see the prosecution, not Trump's defense.
Keep close friends
Mick Mulvaney has been the "interim" chief of staff for nearly a year, which means that he has not seen himself award the official title as Trump does not want to give it to him. But Mulvaney will remain clearly in his place.
Trump disrespected Rudy Giuliani by not finding him a place in the Cabinet. We will probably remember the man once known as the mayor of America, the main defender of Trump – and opportunist foreigner seeking to earn money.
Who knows what happened to Lindsey Graham, who was so attached to John McCain and now seems exclusively for Trump.
If I had to guess about Graham, I would look at the fact that he is about to be re-elected in South Carolina this year, but his drive goes far beyond that. He does not care what people in the media or in Washington think of him. The charity assessment is that Graham thinks he can influence Trump if he stays close to Trump. And the only way to do that is to praise Trump's dominance and stay inside so that he can pick his moments – Syria – to rebel.
What I'm trying to say here is that no one enters Trump's orbit, where absolute loyalty and submission to the public are needed, and that emerges with an improved reputation or a increased respect.
Watch the podcast
Anonymous (and a dynamite stick)
Attempts by "adults in the room" to impose some discipline on a frantic (or non-existent) frantic decision-making process at the White House were "just a wet bandage that would not hold a gaping wound," writes Anonymous . The members of "Steady State" (the term "Deep State" stings clearly) did everything they could, to no avail. Anonymous passes on the baton to "electors and their elected representatives" – it is only now that the witness is a fiery stick of dynamite.
What are we doing here?
The president has invited foreign powers to meddle in the US presidential election.
Democrats want to remove him.
It's a crossroads for the US system of government as the president tries to change what is acceptable to American politicians. This newsletter will focus on this decisive moment in the history of the United States.
. (tagsToTranslate) policy (t) does John Bolton have a bomb (t) and other news about impeachment – CNNPolitics