Jan 27, 2020

January 27, 2020: First-person Accounts, Misleading the Senate, Staring Down The Barrel


Former National Security Advisor to Donald J. tRUMP is about to publish a book in which he details the machinations of Caesar Disgustus as he attempted to extort the Ukrainian government using federal funds. In an article written by Jon Ward and Michael Isikoff and published by Yahoo News, (1) leaked details from the about-to-be published manuscript give lie the president's*(I)(2) defense team's claim that there is no first hand account of any such iniquity.


One Republican operative who advises the White House said he was “flabbergasted at how stupidly they have handled this.”
Trump attorney Mike Purpura argued Saturday that “not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else.”
Purpura repeated that claim on Monday afternoon, saying that “anyone who spoke to the president” said there was no pressure campaign on Ukraine.
That assertion echoes what the president’s legal team argued in its legal brief filed a week ago: “House Democrats’ claims are built entirely on speculation from witnesses who had no direct knowledge about anything and who never even spoke to the President about this matter.”
The disclosure in the New York Times Sunday night directly contradicts the arguments of the president’s lawyers, who said in their brief that this is “the central fact in this case.” Bolton, Trump’s former security adviser, has written in his forthcoming memoir about having just such a conversation with the president last August.
This just completely washes away Purpura’s whole argument,” the White House adviser said. “WTF. He misled the Senate.” (2)
The manuscript was submitted to the White House for security clearance nearly a month ago, just prior to the New Year. The White House defense team should have been aware of its contents, details that would surely emerge if not before the Senate would render a verdict, then certainly shortly thereafter, a revelation that would then display to the world just how badly Moscow Mitch and his cohorts would have been conned.
This revelation comes on the heels of appearances by Lev Parnas, the Boris Badenov of this Rocky and Bullwinkle saga who told Rachel Madow on MSNBC and CNN that as Rudy Giuliani's bagman he was charged with the task of delivering the demands of the White House to the Ukrainian government. He told Maddow and others that not only was the 391 million dollars in military aid at risk but all of the U.S. Assistance as well as our alliance with the Ukraine. Caesar Disgustus was about to hang Kiev out to dry.
Parnas too, is not only a first-person witness, but the prime operative on the ground. He told Maddow that Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo were both, as Ambassador Sonland had testified, in the loop and, with Secretary Perry, delivering similar messages to Kiev. Indeed, Parnas' bona fides were established with the Ukrainians when Mike Pense cancelled his trip to Kiev to attend the inauguration of the new government. Ukraine understood well before the infamous phone call that relations with Washington were capricious and arbitrary.
As we begin the week the Senate is staring down the barrel of whether or not to call witnesses. Both Bolton and Parnas have offered to testify. Both have first-person experience that will confirm prior testimonies. Both stand ready to implicate others and the testimony of both will create overwhelming demand to hear from Pompeo, Perry, Pence, Giuliani and others.
Will the Senate Republicans act or will they simply inhale the stench and sheepishly look about as if they don't know the source, or will they throw the miscreant from the temple and flog his ass? That's the question facing the republic.
An' Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh
Convict and imprison.
_________
    2. The *, as noted previously denotes the illegitimate ascendancy and, hence, the nature of this administration. “I” in parentheses, denotes the scarlet letter of impeachment.
    3. Op. Cit.

No comments: