John Bolton said in an interview to Radio Free Europe that the call between Zelensky and Trump was “warm and cordial.”
Not the atmosphere of threats and pressure is it?
The obvious way to evaluate his supposed accounts is to accept his offer to tell it under an oath against perjury, letting the president’s attorneys cross-examine him. Not to refuse to scrutinize his account!
Watching the senators’ questions and the president’s lawyers’ responses all day, their repeated theme is that a president using a quid pro quo to pressure another nation to announce an investigation about his political rival is no crime and thus shouldn’t be impeached. I humbly repeat that his lawyers’ emphasis that assuming a president did do what the House charges him with, it would be acceptable and doesn’t matter, suggests an unwillingness to argue that there was no such pressure or scheme of events.
As I’ve repeatedly observed, my sense is that those who haven’t had the time to watch the hearings and testimony often argue that no such thing happened, but senators (who’ve needed to follow this and are often lawyers) do not argue against these obvious events. Indeed, I perceive most GOP senators see no point in more witnesses because such facts are already evident to them, and they simply embrace the argument of the president’s lawyers that what Trump is accused of does not warrant impeachment. They don’t say that so overtly since Trump warns them to affirm that nothing but perfection happened.
I’d predict that Trump’s lawyers have given GOP senators what they need to end this quickly.
Conway: Trump critics react like ‘ants on a sugar cube’ to each new development in impeachment trial
and
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump’s impeachment trial should hear from witnesses offering to tell the truth
Brilliant! And HE knows who is lying or telling the truth? Or is every witness against Trump just doing their best to get the gol-durn truth out there!?
How many witnesses does the Judge want? Because the Dims will line them from now till election day - all just wanting to ‘tell the truth’.
A circus, folks!
If you gave me one hour, and the following people: Obama, Trump, Valerie Jarrett, Bolton, Schiff, Nadler, Dershowitz - just those, and we could magically or chemically force them to tell the truth, on camera - I would tear this country to pieces. If we got the TRUTH, it would all come apart.
But who is the Father of Lies? And what is most of Washington build upon?
I have mentioned before, that the Patheos Catholic newsletter… doesn’t reflect the official Roman Catholic Church views…but the views of the individual writer and contributor.
What’s new in the BBC today?
And this story is “too much for me”, even as a technologist. 
Why no Middle East peace?? This seems like a good analysis:
" “Islamic states” should counter the plan. “Muslims worldwide” should work to thwart it. “Jerusalem belongs to Islam.” Palestinians should escalate their “jihad.”
This is the one aspect of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that mainstream Western analysts routinely dismiss or ignore: Islam. This is a disastrous exercise in willful ignorance, as the Palestinian jihadis and their supporters constantly frame their war against Israel in Islamic terms, as The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process shows.
It’s easy to understand, albeit inexcusable, why the Islamic aspect of the conflict is routinely ignored. The Qur’an commands Muslims to “drive them out from where they drove you out” (2:191), and even though it is a historical fiction that Israel actually drove Muslim Arabs out, this claim is a staple of pro-Palestinian propaganda, and hence it is a divine imperative, no more negotiable than the Ten Commandments are for Jews and Christians, that Muslims must destroy Israel and “drive out” the Israelis.
That means that no negotiated settlement will ever establish Israel securely and end the jihad against it, and that’s why analysts ignore Islam when considering the conflict: people don’t like bad news, or problems that cannot be solved. Nonetheless, this is the reality of the situation, and no good can ever come from ignoring reality.
In light of the role of Islam in the conflict, a Palestinian state would simply be a new base for more jihad attacks against Israel, as the withdrawal from Gaza demonstrated. Its establishment would not bring peace. The idea that Palestinians or their allies and supporters will ever sincerely accept Israel’s right to exist is a pipe dream. In light of that, it is easy to see why Abbas so contemptuously dismissed the plan before it was even announced: Trump declared: “To ensure a successful Palestinian state, we are asking the Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful coexistence. This includes adopting basic laws enshrining human rights, protecting against financial and political corruption, stopping the malign activities of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other enemies of peace, ending the incitement of hatred against Israel – so important – and permanently halting the financial compensation to terrorists.” Not gonna happen.
The refusal of analysts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to face the role of Islamic theology in the conflict is astonishingly naïve and ethnocentric. The Palestinians and their supporters will never accept the Trump peace plan because of Islamic imperatives that mandate that Islam must dominate and not be dominated, and that any land that once was ruled by Islamic law must be ruled by Islamic law forever. Unless and until these facts are taken into account, every peace plan is foredoomed."
Which Bolton do you believe?
" …linked to an interview of Bolton in August 2019 where he discusses Ukraine policy. In the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty interview clip, Bolton made no mention of any illicit quid pro quo, and acknowledged, as Republicans have claimed, that combating “corruption” in Ukraine was a “high priority” for the Trump administration.
Bolton also called Trump’s communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “warm and cordial,” without mentioning any misconduct. It seemingly contradicted reported assertions in Bolton’s forthcoming book that Trump explicitly told him he wanted to tie military aid to Ukraine to an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. (Zelensky has said his communications with Trump involved no pressure for any investigation.)"
That was Bolton on the actual record! NOW you want to get excited about him ‘telling the truth’? He already has.
Which Schiff do you prefer?
" Separately, Fox News has identified clips of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., now the lead House impeachment manager, in which he says Bolton had a distinct “lack of credibility” and was prone to “conspiracy theories.” This week, Schiff said Bolton needed to testify in the impeachment trial as an important and believable witness."
Such constant focus upon ad hominem ridicule of others’ motives and process is consistent with my view that such critics dodge addressing the evidence that I’ve argued is already obvious to senators.
In keeping with my policy to present “reliable news” and not “fake news”…here’s today’s story, from the online Weekly World News.
Here’s the original version, folks.
And the full movie, for all to watch.
Right from the horses mouth! I saw it! This impeachment is now in the realm of stupidity.
I wonder, really, what goes on in a Democrat’s head when someone like me asks for a positive statement about Trump’s accomplishments for the nation. Is it like “NO, I will NEVER say anything good about a man” or “he stole the election” or "Americans are too stupid to see what he is - Like Don Lemon and other laughing at 63 million Americans the other night, for being stupid) or “If I give one single inch, the other side will just crow and gloat” or - what?? What is so hard about acknowledging that things are going well for the country, because of Trump? I’ve been looking for that answer for some time.
Anyway - what is Victor Davis Hanson thinking these days?:
"Yet it is now as if neither Mueller nor Horowitz ever existed, as if we have forgotten the thousands of hours of investigation that found no Russian collusion, but indeed discovered the systematic warping of the FISA court by allegations of such falsities. As if to prove that the Mueller investigation was never biased, Andrew Weissmann now appears on MSNBC as a legal analyst to continue what he once did for Mueller, in the manner of the post-Russian “collusion” careers of Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and James Clapper.
…
Very few politicians in memory could physically endure the invective, hate, and furor aimed at Trump and his family daily over the last three years. Much less, could any president function with 90 percent negative media coverage, moles in the executive branch monitoring his every breath, and an unhinged opposition whose reason to get up in the morning is to end Trump.
The Democrats believe that one more whistleblower, just a bit more impeachment, a little more Nadler or Schiff, a pinch more of Pelosi, or another Ukrainian or Russian liar might finally give Trump a stroke or malignancy. With Trump debilitated, they might have a chance against a more traditional Republican.
We will be down to the elemental after impeachment: if you can’t beat Trump legislatively, judicially, or electorally, and if you can’t impeach, convict him and remove him, perhaps you can simply physically destroy him." - VDH
https://amgreatness.com/2020/01/26/target-trump-forever/?fbclid=IwAR3Z8o7NzieP9hN1W4NThko5CTfOTMo1B8VTvOf3z3GbaBd_XUN4z-HL3rY
Amen, our era has fostered each partisan extreme’s emphasis to be ad hominem assertions about the inferior intellect, etc of the other. I experience much more of that from the right, but that’s no doubt only because most of my parish and friends are to my right.
But I find it’s all fallacious. There are many bright well meaning people in each political camp, and it’s time we wrestled with the substance of policy options, and trying to understand why dear ones come to differing conclusions, instead of repeating how stupid everyone is whose perceptions differ from ours.
So anyway we agree that Bolton is out and out prevaricating, as opposed to what he has on record?
What about Bernie? Such a model socialist. Not.
“MARLOW: I thought the person who came off worst in the book — believe it or not, even a little bit worse than Biden — is Bernie Sanders. We all knew that Bernie was the only socialist in America with three homes, one that is lakefront. The corruption, he’s dripping with it. It’s not just that he is inauthentic to be a socialist that’s worth at least $15 million with three homes, but it seems like he’s really been using legal loopholes to enrich himself.”
The sordid details - https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/01/29/peter-schweizer-bernie-is-his-biggest-charity/
Who is this “Marlow” cited by Breitbart here that you like?
Bolton is a right wing extremist who can’t be trusted 
Politico obtained a memo on Thursday written by then-Delaware Sen. Biden in January 1999 that was sent to the Democratic caucus in the middle of the Clinton impeachment battle.
“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial,” Biden said to his Democratic colleagues. “In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”
Biden, 1999 during Clinton’s impeachment.
But of course, now we’re talking about Trump. Truth is soooooo relative.
Oh, no! This is terrible.
And elsewhere!
And let’s not worry about modern medicine, now that AI is here to help!
Wow! He has an impressive resume and list of qualifications. !
I am not terrified!
I think GOP Sen. Alexander’s vote to block witnesses secures Trump’s win that we all expected:
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden” Alexander wrote. “There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this …
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.
“The question then is not whether the president did it, but the American people should decide what to do about what he did in the presidential election,” Alexander concluded.
I agree, and this GOP recognition of the truth confirms the view I’ve repeatedly argued here.