Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now
Forum Home Forum Home > All Sports - Public Forums > Joffs All Sports Bar
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Trump Impeachment Thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Thoroughbred Village Home Page. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. For horseracing tips, follow @Villagebet on Twitter. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.


Trump Impeachment Thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2019 at 8:39pm
Is Maduro still in charge there Doc? Wasn't Trump getting rid of him? 

Maybe he should invite Maduro to Camp David now the Taliban has cancelled and called ''Death to America''
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2019 at 8:46pm
Lets see:

Maduro still in power
Iran firing up their nuclear program.
Kimmy firing rockets again.
Taliban declaring war on America
Russian sanctions dropped but Putin still in Ukraine.
Losing trade war with China bigly
Middle East peace still not sorted,
Mexico still not paying for wall

How good is Trump going?

Did I miss anything?
Only the best people.
Back to Top
rusty nails View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 3685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rusty nails Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2019 at 9:00pm
The economy tanking as a direct result of his genius tariff play......
Back to Top
Tlazolteotl View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 02 Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 16636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tlazolteotl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2019 at 9:01pm
How come America can't beat the Taliban? If we fought WW2 like this the Nazis would still be going strong in 1955 and we'd be preparing to let them back into the German parliament.
"Two hundred years ago, 99.999 percent of human idiocy went unrecorded. Now we have the Internet."

Errol Morris
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2019 at 9:15pm
Alexander the Great nor Genghis Khan couldn't beat the Afghans, the Mango Mussolini is no chance. 

The Taliban dont want a Trump resort in Kandihar, so he has nothing to offer them.
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 26152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Sep 2019 at 4:20pm
O'bummer defeated the Taliban though ... which was an amazing feat since he was so busy fixing the US economy, creating jobs, controlling immigration and the borders, and building a flawless health care system ... oh wait.Embarrassed
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Sep 2019 at 4:37pm
He did do most of that, but never got the better of the Taliban, nobody has. And it was an amazing feat, but then again he didn't spend all of his time golfing and emolumenting, traitoring and kleptocrating. Embarrassed
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 26152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2019 at 1:11am
O'bummer spent all his time frightening the children about "climate change" and panicking everyone about the "rising sea levels" ... it worked, he picked up his new waterfront mansion at Martha's Vineyard for a song! Clap

Maybe the sea level rises are just more bullgelati ... like most of the 8 torturous years that the US Citizens experienced under O'bummer.Embarrassed

Luckily, "someone" has Made America Great Again ... and fixed the rising sea level problem too! Thumbs Up


In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
rusty nails View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 3685
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rusty nails Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2019 at 1:48am
Someone?

Is that the guy who bragged he was a mental genius because he could identify giraffes and zebras correctly?

That’s some low bar you got yourself there Doc!
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 26152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Sep 2019 at 2:07am
Low bar? ... well yes, he only had to do better than O'bummer ...
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Sep 2019 at 10:01am
Low Barr?
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 26152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 6:41pm
How will they find time to impeach Trump, when they have all swung in behind the NYP Fake News in unison, and are all calling for Brett Kavanagh to be "IMPEACHED!!!" ... you know because ... "RRRREEEEEE!!!!"

Seriously, why bother having this Democrat "debate" selection process ... they are all equal ... just give it to a Random Goldfish ... it would be just as smart and have a similar attention span!LOL
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 6:44pm

Nadler: Judiciary too busy impeaching Trump to focus on Kavanaugh claims

"We have our hands full with impeaching the president right now and that’s going to take up our limited resources and time for a while," Nadler said.
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 6:45pm
Nancy doesn't want impeachment though. She doesn't want anything to interfere with putting Trump in prison.
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 26152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 7:55pm
Nancy is a gutless elitist, who knows how badly any move to impeach Trump will play against the Commies ... she may be dumb, but she's not stupid like all the other air headed Socialists!LOL

That's why Trump just keeps on goading them.Clap
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 8:09pm
No, she remembers what happened with Oliver North, and she wants nothing to get in the way of imprisoning the traitor. She really hates him and as one of the Intelligence Committee gang of eight knows exactly what he has done.
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 26152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 8:37pm
You know that Trump will be a Two Term POTUS when Skeletor Pelosi is a member of the "Intelligence" Committee!LOL
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2019 at 1:45pm
Out of interest, this is the timeline of the Clinton impeachment.

October 5, 1998The Judiciary Committee of the House votes, 21 to 16 along party lines, to recommend an impeachment inquiry.
October 8, 1998The House of Representatives votes, 258 to 176, to conduct an impeachment inquiry.
November 3, 1998In mid-term elections, Democrats do surprisingly well.
Nov. 9-Dec. 10, 1998The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings on impeachment.
November 17, 1998The Judiciary Committee releases 22 hours of taped conversations between Lewinsky and Linda Tripp.
November 27, 1998Clinton submits answers to 81 question posed to him by the Judiciary Committee.
December 11-12, 1998The House Judiciary Committee approves four articles of impeachment, relating to perjury before the grand jury, obstruction of justice, perjury in a civil deposition, and abuse of power.
December 19, 1998The House impeaches President Clinton, approving two of four articles of impeachment. Bob Livingston resigns. Vice-President Gore and House Democrats join Clinton in a show of support on the South Lawn of the White House.
January 7, 1999The impeachment trial formally opens in the Senate. Chief Justice Rehnquist is sworn in as the presiding judge. The charges are read.
January 12, 1999.Clinton settles the Paula Jones suit for $850,000
January 14, 1999Opening statements are delivered by five of the House Managers of the prosecution.
January 15, 1999Opening statements by the Managers continue and the Chief Justice issues his first ruling, upholding an objection by Senator Harkin to the Managers' use of the word "jurors" in referring to the Senators.
January 19, 1999Opening statements by the defense team begin hours before President Clinton delivers his State of the Union address.
January 21, 1999A speech by former Senator Dale Bumpers wraps up the opening arguments for the President.
January 22, 1999The Senate begins a two-day question and answer period. Starr's office seeks a court order requiring Lewinsky to meet with the House Managers.
January 23, 1999Ordered to meet with the Managers, Lewinsky is mobbed by media when she returns to Washington.
January 24, 1999Lewinsky meets with three House Managers in a Washington hotel room.
January 25, 1999The Managers decide to produce just three witnesses for the trial, Lewinsky, Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal.
January 27, 1999The Senate rejects a Democratic proposal to dismiss the case on a 56 to 44 vote, with one Democrat (Feingold of Wisconsin) voting with the Republicans.
February 1, 1999Monica Lewinksy is deposed on videotape by House Manager Ed Bryant.
February 2, 1999Vernon Jordan is deposed on videotape by House Manager Asa Hutchinson.
February 4, 1999The Senate votes not to have live witnesses on the Senate floor, but to allow presentations of the videotaped testimony of three witnesses.
February 6, 1999The Senate watches videotaped testimony from Lewinsky, Jordan, and Blumenthal.
February 8, 1999Closing arguments in the impeachment trial are presented by both sides.
February 9, 1999Deliberations by the 100 Senators begin behind closed doors.
February 12, 1999The trial ends. The Senate acquits the President, voting 45 to 55 for conviction on the perjury count and 50 to 50 for conviction on the obstruction of justice count.

Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2019 at 1:50pm
Lawfare analysis of the summary Trump/Zelensky phone call

The misconduct cannot be dismissed as unproven; it screams off the plain text of the White House’s own memorandum detailing the president’s phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart. It cannot be disparaged as the result of a “Witch Hunt” or blamed on angry Democrats working for a special counsel or attempting a coup from the depths of the “Deep State.” The revelation did not flow from any investigation at all but, instead, from the complaints of shocked subordinates, complaints that generated pressure that ultimately caused the president himself to fess up and release the document. It cannot be blamed on “The Squad” or on Nancy Pelosi or on Adam Schiff. None of these people made the president say the words that appear in that document. None of them made him take the actions into which the memo offers dramatic visibility. Nor does the president deny that he said those words. He just thinks it’s fine for a president to do so.

And that, really, is the crux of the problem and the crux of the decision before Congress. To do nothing is to agree that this conduct is acceptable.

Before turning to what this document says, what it means and how we should collectively think about it, it’s important to emphasize that the memo does not represent the full scope of the still-emerging scandal that is L’Affaire Ukraine. For the past few weeks, the public has been looking at a complex scene through the narrowest of keyholes. That scene involves not just this one phone call but also Rudy Giuliani’s interactions with the Ukrainian governmentmachinations in the White Housethe withholding of aid to Ukraine and presumably a bunch of other presidential actions. (Here is a timeline of the known events.) The release of this document does not completely fill out the picture. It dramatically fills out just one component of the picture. So keep in mind that we are still looking through a keyhole at the scene—just a keyhole whose aperture has suddenly widened and thus provided a clearer view of part of the hidden room. However bad the White House memorandum is—and it is very bad indeed—the full reality is almost certainly far worse.

The president is unrepentant. After the release of the memo, he tweeted:

Will the Democrats apologize after seeing what was said on the call with the Ukrainian President? They should, a perfect call - got them by surprise!

53.8K people are talking about this

Over the course of the day since then, he has retweeted a steady stream of posts by political allies declaring that the memo is exonerating. He has asserted in two press conferences (one with Zelensky at the United Nations) that this—like the Mueller investigation—is a “Witch Hunt” and that he did nothing wrong. Meanwhile, talking points sent out by the White House focus instead on allegations of wrongdoing by Joe and Hunter Biden, arguing that Trump’s goal was to root out corruption in both Ukraine and the United States. Along with Trump’s allies in the press, the White House has also tried to paint Trump’s goal as enlisting Ukrainian assistance in probing Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

We will leave it to others to predict whether these arguments will carry the day politically as Congress weighs the question of impeachment. During his press conference with Trump, Zelensky offered some support, stating that “nobody pushed me” to investigate Biden and emphatically asserted that Ukraine is an “independent country” with an “independent judiciary” over which he has no control.

But Serhiy Leshchenko, an adviser to Zelensky, told ABC that the Ukrainians understood discussion of the Biden issue as a precondition for scheduling a call with Trump: “It was clear that Trump will only have communications if they will discuss the Biden case,” said the adviser. “This issue was raised many times. I know that Ukrainian officials understood.”

For present purposes, it suffices to note that the text of the memo offers not a whiff of support for the president’s claims about what he did. That text unambiguously reflects conduct intolerable in a president in a number of different respects. And it does so in five brief, easy-to-understand pages, in which Trump clearly seeks to recruit a foreign head of state to violate the civil liberties of American citizens and uncover dirt on a potential political opponent in the 2020 presidential election. For everyone who breathed a sigh of relief that the Mueller report did not establish presidential “collusion” with Russia in 2016, the White House itself has announced with this release that the president himself has already engaged in such collusion with Ukraine for the next election cycle—and what’s more, he is putting the powers of the American presidency to that purpose.

Let’s start by parsing what the document says, though we urge readers to take the time to read it in full:

 

The conversation in question took place the morning of July 25, 2019—one day after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees regarding the results of his investigation. The relevant part of the conversation starts a few minutes in, after an exchange of pleasantries in which Trump congratulates Zelensky on his party’s recent win in Ukraine’s parliamentary elections. Trump moves from there to a discussion of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship, framing it in terms of reciprocity:

Trump: The United States has been very good to Ukraine.  I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

After lauding the United States for its support for Ukraine, Zelensky shifts the conversation to business:  

Zelensky: I would like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The “Javelins” that Zelensky is referring to are U.S. anti-tank missiles, a type of weapon that the Trump administration began providing to Ukraine along with other forms of lethal equipment in 2017. Just a few weeks before Trump and Zelensky spoke, Ukraine had put in a request to purchase additional arms and military equipment from the United States, which was still pending review by U.S. officials by the time of the call.

But Trump then pivots to a new topic (emphasis added):

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Here Trump appears to be referencing a peculiar conspiracy theory he’s echoed in the past, casting doubt on whether Russia was really responsible for the hack of the DNC server in the spring of 2016. Proponents of this theory argue that because the DNC server hacked by the Russian government in the lead-up to the 2016 election was never examined by the FBI but only by Crowdstrike, a private cybersecurity company hired by the DNC, its conclusions cannot be trusted. Trump has said in the past—incorrectly—that the company is owned by a Ukrainian national. Here, he appears to be asking for Zelensky’s help, and proposing enlisting Attorney General William Barr, to track down this server—which he seems to believe somehow ended up in Ukraine. (There is no evidence for this.)

Zelensky responds by emphasizing the importance of U.S.-Ukrainain cooperation and the broader strategic partnership, assuring Trump that the American president “ha[s] nobody but friends” in Zelensky’s administration. He mentions a recent meeting between one of his assistants and the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, noting that “we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine,” before closing by assuring Trump that “all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.” Trump then uses this as an opportunity to pivot to another topic of particular concern:

Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.

The prosecutor in question is Viktor Shokin, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general. Shokin was removed from his position by Ukraine’s parliament in 2016, after the Obama administration threatened to withhold U.S. foreign assistance to the country over Shokin’s resistance to pursuing corruption prosecutions. This policy decision has played a central role in another series of theories Giuliani has advanced in recent months. Giuliani has posited that the Obama administration—and Vice President Joe Biden, in particular—lobbied for Shokin’s removal because he had opened an investigation into a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, of which Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a board member. Subsequent reporting has shown that the investigation into Burisma was long dormant by this time and did not implicate the younger Biden, and one of Shokin’s successors cleared the Bidens of any suspicion of wrongdoing. Yet Trump and Giuliani have continued to circulate it anyway. For this reason, perhaps, Trump goes on to discuss another actor in the broader controversy:

Trump: The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.

The ambassador Trump is referencing is Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador in Kyiv from August 2016 through May 2019, when she was summarily dismissed just a few months prior to the end of her appointed term. Yovanovitch had become a target of criticism for Giuliani, who accused her of involvement in a conspiracy to expose information damaging to the Trump campaign in 2016.

Trump then turns to his request that Zelensky have the Ukrainian prosecutor general revisit the subject of the Bidens’ role in Shokin’s removal. Here and at multiple other points throughout the conversation, he references Barr, as well as Giuliani, as a point of contact for Zelensky on the matter. (The Justice Department has stated that Barr “has not communicated with Ukraine” or discussed the matter with Giuliani, and that Trump did not ask Barr to contact the Ukrainian government.):

Trump: The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

Zelensky responds by assuring Trump that he is appointing a new prosecutor who will “look into the situation.” Trump goes on:

Trump: I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything.

After Zelensky promises Trump to that he will “take care of” the investigation, Trump comments that Yovanovitch is “going to go through some things.”

There’s a great deal more—including Zelensky’s apparent attempt to ingratiate himself with Trump by noting that he stayed at Trump Tower New York on his last visit to the city. But by and large, this is the substance of the call that appears to have motivated the whistleblower complaint. It is also the substance that rightly has Congress’s attention.

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported that the director of national intelligence and the intelligence community inspector general referred the complaint about Trump’s call with Zelensky to the Justice Department for possible criminal investigation. The director in question appears to have been Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. His predecessor, Dan Coats, left the role on Aug. 15 and has stated publicly that the whistleblower complaint was presented the day after his departure. According to the Post, the inspector general found that Trump’s pressuring of Zelensky could implicate campaign finance laws prohibiting the solicitation or acceptance of a “thing of value” from foreign nationals.

The Criminal Division of the Justice Department, however, reviewed the memo describing the Zelensky call and found that the facts did not supply an adequate predicate for a criminal investigation, the Justice Department has stated publicly. According to the Post, Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski made the final decision. The department’s reasoning rests on the argument that an investigation by the Ukrainian government did not constitute a “thing of value” under the relevant statute, the Post writes.

If all this sounds familiar, it’s because it is: A key question considered by Robert Mueller involved whether Donald Trump Jr. and the leadership of the Trump campaign unlawfully solicited a thing of value from Russian individuals in seeking “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the infamous Trump Tower New York meeting. In that instance, Mueller declined to bring charges in part because of the difficulty in ascertaining whether the promised dirt constituted a thing of value and, if it did constitute such a thing, what its valuation would be.

Campaign finance lawyers and other specialists will debate the adequacy of the Justice Department’s judgment in the Ukraine case, just as they did about Mueller’s declination decision. On today’s special edition of the Lawfare Podcast, campaign finance expert Bob Bauer argued that the Justice Department’s apparent analysis, to the extent that it’s public, is not persuasive. And former Justice Department official David Kris raised a number of other possible theories of criminal liability:

Whatever the merits of the criminal side of the picture, it is a side-show. The far bigger question is the acceptability of the president’s conduct. As law professor Alan Rozenshstein put it earlier today: “The question is not whether Trump broke federal criminal law. The question is whether he has failed to uphold his constitutional duties and should be impeached and removed from office.”

In that regard, while the call provides no shortage of material to analyze, three main issues stand out regarding Trump’s conduct: the question of a possible quid pro quo; the clear evidence that the president solicited the Ukrainian president to deliver dirt on U.S. persons in a gross abuse of their civil liberties; and a just-as-clear attempt at soliciting foreign government intervention in a U.S. presidential campaign.

Trump and his supporters have aggressively asserted that the call does not contain evidence of a quid pro quo. But in context of the broader issue of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, the memo actually is suggestive of a kind of shakedown. Days before the call, Trump ordered his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to freeze a substantial package of military aid to Ukraine—a move that reportedly baffled and concerned officials in both the State and Defense Departments. Now consider how Trump sets the stage for his conversation with Zelensky by framing the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship in terms of reciprocity, suggesting that “the United States has been very good to Ukraine” but Ukraine may not have adequately reciprocated. 

Thus when Zelensky comes in with his ask—for the president’s support for Ukrainian efforts to acquire defensive equipment from the United States—Trump is ready. He immediately pivots to an ask of his own, telling Zelensky that “I would like you to do us a favor though[.]”

But the favor in question is not a policy favor for the United States. It’s a political favor for Trump. This is where Trump raises the issue of Crowdstrike, asking Zelensky to “find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.” Recall that the conspiracy theory regarding Crowdstrike involves casting doubt on whether Russia really hacked the DNC and, thus, on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election at all. Trump appears to be asking for Zelensky’s help in amplifying this theory—which supports Trump’s understanding of the Mueller probe as a “Witch Hunt”—and finding evidence to support it. His request for a “favor”—immediately after Zelensky references a prospective purchase—is easily understood as the president’s connecting the U.S.’s provision of defensive equipment on Zelinsky’s willingness to provide assistance to Barr on a matter of personal concern to the president.

When Zelensky responds positively, stating that “all the investigations will be done openly and candidly,” Trump digs in further with another request: “whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” he says, pushing Zelensky to commit to investigating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. He requests repeatedly that Zelensky speak to Giuliani, who at this time was publicly calling for the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens.

Here again, context is key. The president is invoking a debunked conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden which, if successfully propagated, would weaken Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential candidacy.

So while the president and his supporters are correct that there is no explicit quid pro quo in the sense of a moment in which Trump says something like, “I will only give you those weapons you need if you help me with my re-election run,” the coercive context is not hard to infer from the text itself and the surrounding circumstances. A plain reading of the memo makes clear that the quid is funds for defense equipment, and the quo is help from Zelensky in discrediting the Mueller investigation’s findings and Trump’s potential political opponent, Joe Biden. It may not be clear enough to satisfy the exacting standards of the criminal law. But remember, this is only one conversation in a long string of interactions, and Congress is not assessing whether the bribery or extortion statutes have been offended. It is assessing whether the president is fit to hold office.

Quid pro quo is actually not the sin qua non of impeachability in this conversation anyway. Even if there was no quid pro quo, or the evidence on the subject is unclear, there is no question that Trump explicitly requested that the government of Ukraine investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. This is the overt solicitation by the president of a foreign investigation into a political opponent—a serious offense in and of itself, whether Trump conditioned aid to Ukraine on the investigation or not.

The civil liberties and constitutional rights of American citizens are implicated every time the government initiates a law enforcement investigation. For this reason, when the government believes that a violation of U.S. law has taken place, laws and guidelines govern how law enforcement may proceed. The nature of the investigation—whether it is a criminal probe or a national security investigation—dictates the protections that must apply and the predicate thresholds that must be met. But in all cases, it is impermissible for the government to investigate someone simply for political purposes. To do so is to wield the coercive powers of the U.S. law enforcement apparatus to abuse a citizen’s rights.

If a domestic investigation into a U.S. citizen requires information from a foreign government, U.S. law enforcement has specific processes to request that information—including, but not limited to, agreements like Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. This foreign law enforcement cooperation occurs within a framework designed to both share information and also respect the rights of the relevant parties within the respective jurisdictions of both governments. The inverse sometimes happens as well: Foreign governments will initiate investigations that require U.S. law enforcement cooperation and will make requests of the Department of Justice for information to be shared. Again, there are specific channels and processes that govern when and how such cooperation occurs.

But none of this took place here. There is no evidence that any U.S. law enforcement entity has investigated Biden or his son regarding corruption in Ukraine or made official requests to Ukraine along these lines. Instead, the president asked the president of Ukraine to wield his country’s law enforcement powers against these people. And he dispatched his personal attorney to help.

To be sure, presidents sometimes attempt to use their foreign policy authorities to encourage a foreign government to initiate its own law enforcement action. The U.S., for example, pressures Latin American countries to take action against narcotraffickers and pressures China to crack down on intellectual property theft. This type of pressure sometimes involves encouraging foreign partners to pursue legal actions against individuals whom U.S. officials believe have committed crimes but cannot themselves prosecute for jurisdictional or other, more pragmatic reasons. The paradigmatic example is encouraging the foreign prosecution of terrorism suspects, a practice that has played a major role in U.S. counterterrorist efforts since the Sept. 11 attacks. But the proper amount of pressure for the U.S. president to exert against a foreign government to investigate U.S. citizens for political purposes is zero. It should simply never happen.

And the context surrounding Trump’s requests regarding the Bidens shows it to be anything but policy driven. Unlike most such requests, this one was not the product of a deliberative interagency process aimed at arriving at a cohesive U.S. policy. To the contrary, reports indicate that officials on the National Security Council had grown concerned in recent months over the degree to which Trump and Giuliani have come to personally dominate Ukraine policy at the expense of other foreign policy officials. Nor was Trump’s request backed up by the sort of evidence or other information that one would expect in an effort to legitimate that foreign government’s legal action, especially as Ukrainian officials had previously cleared Hunter Biden of any wrongdoing.

Most importantly, however, requests for foreign law enforcement action almost always occur through conventional diplomatic and law enforcement channels, so that working-level officials can coordinate further on the details. These requests never involve referrals to private citizens with no diplomatic or law enforcement authority or responsibility—let alone, as in this case, the president’s personal attorney—in directly relevant legal action. The unavoidable inference is that the request being made has nothing to do with the national interests such actions are supposed to advance, and everything to do with the president’s own interests.

American citizens are entitled to certain constitutional rights, including the right to due process and the right not to be subject to law enforcement action because of their constitutionally protected political expression. When taking action that may compromise the private interests of a U.S. citizen, the federal government is required to weigh the risk that those private interests will be erroneously denied against the public interest being pursued and the burden that taking additional measures to reduce the risk of arbitrary deprivation would entail. A series of legal and regulatory restrictions help ensure that the government respects these rights within the United States, but the constitutional obligation to do so doesn’t go away overseas. Yet here, Trump appears to have taken an official act as president vetted by no particular process and without any clear public interest in mind, with the clear knowledge and intent that, if he had his way, his actions could lead to the investigation, prosecution and arrest of two American citizens. In other words, he appears to have acted without any regard for their constitutional due process rights—a set of rights that prior presidential administrations have been careful to at least consider even when detaining and targeting Americans overseas who are suspected of being terrorists hostile to the United States. The contrast with how this administration has approached its duties toward a former vice president and possible presidential candidate is striking. 

The last major area of concern about this call involves the solicitation of foreign intervention in American electoral politics. Everyone who claimed the Mueller report vindicated the president because Mueller did not prove “collusion” with Russia needs to reckon seriously with what Trump asked of Zelensky. In L’Affaire Russe, the Russian state—at the direction of the Russian president himself—intervened in the American presidential election by a number of different means. The defense of Trump’s conduct, and that of his campaign, was that they were not involved in the Russian intervention. Even to the extent that people associated with the Trump campaign had contact with the Russians, it is not clear that Trump himself knew about the contacts. Here, by contrast, the request to a foreign government to involve itself in American electoral politics is as direct as can be. The president in this document is asking his counterpart to deliver the goods on a possible electoral opponent. And he is doing it himself. There is no plausible deniability. If this is not collusion in precisely the sense that collusion’s absence was purportedly so exculpatory in the Russia context, it’s hard to imagine what collusion would look like. And unlike the conduct described in Volume I of the Mueller report, the president is no longer a private citizen. Now, he is actually corruptly wielding the powers of his office in order to achieve this abusive end. This represents a dramatic escalation in severity.

Tomorrow, Maguire will testify before the House Intelligence Committee. He may face questions about the contents of the complaint, his interactions with the White House and the Department of Justice, as well as reports that he threatened resignation if he could not speak freely before the committee—reports that he later denied. The whistleblower complaint has been delivered to Congress, and members of both intelligence committees have reviewed it, so it’s likely that more details about its contents will emerge soon. Trump also stated that he is willing to release transcripts of both his and Zelenky’s first telephone conversation and the Ukrainian president’s meeting with Mike Pence. A great deal depends on how legislators react to the widening aperture and resulting increased visibility into the room.

It is important to remember that impeachment is a hybrid of a legal phenomenon and a political one. While it proceeds under a constitutionally defined legal standard, the adjudicator of that standard is Congress, not a prosecutor or a judge. The question of whether the president has committed “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” involves the application of a legal and constitutional standard, but it’s a standard defined and articulated by political judgment. In the midst of the Clinton impeachment, Lindsey Graham—then a member of the House of Representatives—articulated it well: “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role…. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office.  Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”  

The key question is thus how Congress’s collective judgment will change as the keyhole widens and we see more and more of the picture. After viewing the whistleblower complaint, Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska said, “Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons to say there’s no there there when there’s obviously lots that’s very troubling there.”  Does this suggest that confronting the stark reality of what Trump has done might spark a shift in opinion?

Another key question will be what timeline House Democrats envision for moving forward. On the one hand, the memo itself could form the basis for an article of impeachment, and moving expeditiously could allow Pelosi to take advantage of the political momentum in her caucus for impeachment. Democrats may choose to let matters ripen. This memo is just one piece of a larger puzzle of potentially impeachable conduct worthy of investigation—and further investigation may reveal even worse conduct. In the meantime, the president and his allies will launch an all-out effort to discredit the impeachment proceedings and normalize the president’s conduct. So there’s a race to frame public understanding of the conduct at issue, along with the investigation of that conduct.

And therein lies the rub. Using the office of the presidency of the United States to pressure the head of a foreign government to investigate a domestic political opponent ahead of an election is gross misconduct. It clearly corrupts the political and governmental process by threatening the independence of U.S. elections. But in the context of a president who is breaking a whole host of political and moral norms on a daily basis, how long does one keep investigating before one finally renders judgment and forces a vote?

The answer may be when the Speaker of the House can count the 218 votes necessary to pass articles of impeachment whose inevitability she seems suddenly to accept.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-impeaching-trump-zelensky-conversation

Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2019 at 1:50pm
Audio version available on the link half way down the article.
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Dr E View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 26152
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dr E Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2019 at 8:48pm
I'm waiting for Whoopi Goldberg to post her analysis on her blog ... I'm sure it will be more even handed and yet, just as meaningfulLOL
In reference to every post in the Trump thread ... "There may have been a tiny bit of license taken there" ... Ok, Thanks for the "heads up" PT!
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2019 at 9:01am
While you are waiting chow down on this. 


Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2019 at 9:54am
Very similar to 1974. There had been little appetite for impeachment of Nixon until Democrats commenced impeachment hearings and the numbers flipped to almost the same as this poll. from 42-52 to 53-42.

As evidence of criminality was exposed in hearings where the public watched on prime time tv, sentiment changed so quickly that Republicans who had been like they are now, 90%+ opposed to impeachment, went to Nixon and tapped him on the shoulder.

Republican insiders now say that if there was a secret ballot in the impeachment trial in the Senate, 30 Republicans would vote to fire Trump.

Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2019 at 10:18am
This story is moving so fast Nancy has gone from no impeach to we have a smoking gun within a week She was right a few months ago after the Mueller hearings when she said Trump will impeach himself, he can't help himself..

Only the best people.
Back to Top
stayer View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 9418
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stayer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2019 at 10:42pm
Originally posted by Passing Through Passing Through wrote:

This story is moving so fast Nancy has gone from no impeach to we have a smoking gun within a week She was right a few months ago after the Mueller hearings when she said Trump will impeach himself, he can't help himself..


Yeah the "trump will impeach himself" is the thing.

Nah.
"She's going through a growth phase." - GW
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2019 at 9:32am
You really cant be this thick stayer. Do you have any clue what is going on around you?
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2019 at 9:33am

Democrats subpoena Pompeo as part of impeachment inquiry


Democrats hit the gas on their impeachment inquiry Friday, subpoenaing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for documents they demanded weeks earlier that describe a pattern of interactions between President Donald Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and senior Ukrainian officials who they pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.

Rep Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued the subpoena in consultation with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, who have been probing Trump's solicitation of foreign help in the 2020 election.


Subpoenas:


Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2019 at 11:16am
Whistle-blower report claims it's first head:

CNN reporting: Kurt Volker, US special envoy to Ukraine, has resigned.
Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2019 at 8:32pm

“ROMNEY IS THE PRESSURE POINT IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS”: MITT WON’T PRIMARY TRUMP—BUT HE’S TRYING TO BRING HIM DOWN

Trump’s favorite punching bag is reaching out to fellow Republicans to raise the temperature on impeachment. “Romney is the one guy who could bring along Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Ben Sasse,” says a Mitt confidant.

 

BY GABRIEL SHERMAN

OCTOBER 7, 2019

When it comes to impeachment, the Republican Senate, resting on the bedrock of Donald Trump’s base, has been viewed as an unbreachable wall. But what would it look like if it started to crack? The first sign might be an ominous quiet. The emergence of a second intelligence-agency whistle-blower, this one reportedly with a firsthand account that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure its government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, complicates the president’s deep state conspiracy defense—and the senators on whom Trump’s political survival rests are mostly lying low. “The messaging is missing this time,” a former West Wing official told me. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that he would be forced to hold a Senate trial if the House impeached Trump. “There’s been a real increase in nervousness over the past three or four weeks,” a prominent GOP member told me. “Everybody sees what Trump did as such a clear abuse of power,” said another prominent Republican. “Whether it’s criminal or not is another issue. But it’s so blatantly over the line.”

There’s no flood of GOP refugees yet—but there’s unmistakable drift. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is 87%, a drop of four points since mid September, according to the latest Gallup tracking poll. Meanwhile, Trump’s firewall at Fox News, a vital bulwark that protects his GOP base, has also shown signs of cracking. Tucker Carlson conceded in an op-ed that Trump’s actions were indefensible, though not impeachable. Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano called Trump’s Ukraine actions “criminal and impeachable behavior” last week. Behind the scenes, Fox board member Paul Ryan has privately told Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch to cut ties with Trump.

In the Senate, Ben Sasse and Susan Collins have made their usual equivocal noises—but not surprisingly, its Mitt Romney, longtime Trump antagonist and sometime suck-up, who’s become the standard-bearer, leading to questions as to what his game is. According to sources, donors have in recent days called the Utah senator and encouraged him to run against Trump in the primary. “There is a half-billion dollars on the sidelines from guys who are fed up with Trump,” a GOP donor told me. Their hopes were raised when Romney attacked Trump on Friday, tweeting: “By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.” Former White House communications director turned Trump antagonist Anthony Scaramucci tweeted a poll showing Romney beating Trump 55% to 37% in a hypothetical primary. Trump fired back on Saturday. “Mitt Romney never knew how to win,” Trump tweeted. “He is a pompous ‘ass’ who has been fighting me from the beginning, except when he begged me for my endorsement for his Senate run (I gave it to him), and when he begged me to be Secretary of State (I didn’t give it to him). He is so bad for R’s!”

According to people close to Romney, he’s firmly decided against primarying Trump, an enterprise he believes to be a sure loser given Trump’s enduring GOP support. Romney has also told people that, as an unsuccessful two-time presidential candidate, he’s the wrong person to take on Trump. Instead, a Romney adviser told me, Romney believes he has more potential power as a senator who will decide Trump’s fate in an impeachment trial. “He could have tremendous influence in the impeachment process as the lone voice of conscience in the Republican caucus,” the adviser said. In recent days, Romney has been reaching out privately to key players in the Republican resistance, according to a person briefed on the conversations. “Romney is the one guy who could bring along Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Ben Sasse. Romney is the pressure point in the impeachment process. That’s why the things he’s saying are freaking Republicans out.” (Romney, through a spokesperson, declined to comment.)

GOP elected officials and donors are privately war-gaming what an endgame for Trump would look like. “It’s clear the House is going to impeach,” the prominent Republican told me. Making matters worse for Trump, a policy wedge has opened up between Trump and the Republican Senate at a moment when he needs its support most. Trump’s surprise decision to pull back American troops in Syria and allow Turkey to take on our Kurdish allies has enraged Trump’s closest GOP allies, including Lindsey Graham. “The Syria decision is a much bigger deal,” another former West Wing official said. “No one on the inside can hold Trump accountable. The Senate Republicans are the only check on power right now.”

Vanity Fair

Only the best people.
Back to Top
Passing Through View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 37689
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Passing Through Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2019 at 9:12am
This seems significant. 58% want an impeachment inquiry, including a majority of Independent voters.

Only the best people.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.





Click here to bet with our preferred online bookmaker, BetEasy.