Press "Enter" to skip to content



Make no mistake about it. John Bolton’s book transcript as it relates to the President’s impeachment is ABSOLUTELY a political construct and one that is devised to upend the entire impeachment process by undermining a pillar of the President’s defense – that there was no quid pro quo in dealing with President Zelensky or any other Ukrainians. See the call transcript.

For context, these items are important:

  1. THIS presents the notion of the original construct outlined as an exit strategy whereby the House intentionally delivered insufficient and unconstitutional Articles of Impeachment.
  2. THIS provides the most accurate and thorough synopsis and analysis of Trump’s opening arguments you’ll find. Importantly, it touches on the impeachment trap being placed in front of the President.
  3. THIS foreshadows how the balance of Trump’s defense will play-out post-opening arguments as suggested by Pat Cipollone and confirmed in a subsequent Press Pool call transcript.
  4. THIS is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT because it outlines the convergence of the timelines referenced above as a potential political construct.

That brings us to this morning, whereby Fox News is making good our our speculation with THIS. From that article, consider this excerpt.

Leaked claims from former National Security Adviser John Bolton‘s forthcoming book are fueling a new confrontation between congressional Democrats and Trump-allied Republicans over whether the Senate should hear from witnesses in the impeachment trial.

The revelation, reported by The New York Times, that President Trump connected frozen aid to Ukraine to investigations into the family of 2020 rival Joe Biden could throw a wrench into Senate Republicans’ plans to quickly move toward a vote on whether to convict or acquit the president. Democrats have been pushing to have the Senate hear from Bolton, among other witnesses who did not provide testimony to the House during the impeachment inquiry. Their calls got new life Sunday.

“The @NYTimes report suggests multiple top Trump Admin officials knew the facts and deliberately misled Congress and the American people,” Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted Sunday. “A massive White House cover-up. All we need is four Republican Senators to get the truth.”

Trump argued on Monday morning that it’s too late, tweeting: “The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate!”

At the heart of the impeachment trial is Trump’s July 25, 2019 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump said the call was focused on corruption in Kiev and raised the Bidens as an example. Trump has denied the Democrats’ claim that there was a quid pro quo and did so again following the Bolton report.

Lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also seized on the Times report to make his case that the Senate should call Bolton, who has said he would testify if subpoenaed.

Again, if you haven’t read THIS, it outlines the entire premise and it’s even a bit humorous. Here’s the premise delivered in that article.

Well, Bolton bit. That he bit isn’t as relevant as how he bit and when he bit; especially the latter. ‘How’ was to undermine a pillar of Trump’s counsel’s defense – and ‘when’ is as converging with Pelosi’s transmittance of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Consider this excerpt from The Hill piece germane to timing (emphasis mine.)


The timing of the manuscript submission means the White House has had it for nearly a month, raising questions about whether the administration was aware of its contents heading into the impeachment trial.

The House impeached Trump last month for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.


So, how should we view all of this and through which lens? Let’s start with the lens, which simply needs to offer a spectrum wide enough to envelop all of the details but more importantly, all of the TIMING.

So, again, I’ll state this. Raise your hand if you think Speaker Pelosi was waiting for the DSSG to finalize maneuvers with Bolton to ensure that chess piece would be in place and ready to serve in the capacity it’s serving right now – to undermine a pillar of the President’s defense and at a critical juncture in the impeachment process – trying to shift the evidentiary burden from the House (sole impeachment authority) to the court, or the Senate, sole power to hold the impeachment trial?

I’ll ask this again, too. Raise your hand if you think that Bolton was in cahoots with the Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, et al. cabal this entire time.

The House’s political gambit won’t work. Remember the President’s own words (emphasis mine), “The Democrat controlled House never even asked John Bolton to testify. It is up to them, not up to the Senate!”

The relevant point in that quote – they are unconstitutionally transferring the onus of compelling Bolton to testify by improperly citing instances of previous impeachments and to the extent that the book transcript will serve as the impetus to call for Bolton’s improper testimony (new fact witness never called by the House.)

This construct is exactly as I’ve outlined and it’s all based on Pelosi’s House intentionally submitting weak, flimsy, unconstitutional and insufficiently predicated Articles of Impeachment whereby they can transfer the evidentiary burden (additional evidence and witness testimony needed as a result of their own incomplete work.)

Here are the relevant aspects of that article, which now take on entirely new meaning with the emergence of the details about Bolton’s book. Here is what I wrote.

Here’s that strategy: With no crimes ergo no evidence, there is no ability to predicate legitimate Articles of Impeachment. Now, remember this fine detail that makes a HUGE difference. One of the parallel objectives of the coup d’etat/impeachment effort is the exploitation of the impeachment process as a mechanism to launder Democratic narrative, talking points and anti-Trump campaign fodder to be delivered to the American people on a grand stage; all partisan and political maneuvering devoid of any intent to exercise the rule of law and shine light on the truth. Another objective relative to all of this that is discussed frequently is the self-preservation angle.

So, by intentionally sending weak articles to the Senate, the Democrats frame a construct around the Senate that is based on criticizing it for proceeding to trial hastily and absent all of the needed evidence and testimony; the provision of which is incumbent upon the House (pure projection, here.)

So what we’re seeing now – all of the criticism coming from the Democrats – is a pressure campaign being applied to the Senate to enforce that construct. That entails painting a picture of the Senate being the bad guy for forcing a trial without all of the evidence.

By doing so, it permits the Democrats to reach their ultimate objective, which is using this construct and its pressure campaign to leverage themselves into a position where they will walk away from their own failures while hanging 100% of the blame on the Senate. The easy bet is that immediately following the acquittal and total exoneration, they’ll scream cover-up (already screaming it.) I believe that’s exactly what Nadler was throwing down.


So, there it is – all outlined for your consideration. One last thing. Raise your hand if you think that Bolton was in cahoots with the Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, et al. cabal this entire time.

Yeah, me too. Confirmed (opinion.)


Leave a ReplyCancel reply