Impeachment Thread

[magicalmoments]

#440 above.
Ole 1i spouting his foolishness as usual.
There is one point that is like someone in the know to confirm. Does the USA have federal archiving laws that set out what records must be retained? I thought it did. I thought this was part of the problem of Clinton using a private server for emails, apart from the security concerns, no facility for long term archiving.
I would have thought interpreters notes would be in the same category, I imagine these would be headed for long term archiving as well. I imagine they'd be available to historians for research in 50 years in the future. Trump actually confiscating the notes would be in breach of this requirement I would have thought?
Am I wrong?

 

[icanhelp1]

#440 above.
Ole 1i spouting his foolishness as usual.

You're ignorance is shining bright today!

There is one point that is like someone in the know to confirm. Does the USA have federal archiving laws that set out what records must be retained? I thought it did.

There is the PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT. There is no evidence he destroyed them. Separation of powers under article II protects all conversations with foreign leaders. Adam Schiff and his cronies don't run the office of the presidency. The appropriate government officials were briefed.

I thought this was part of the problem of Clinton using a private server for emails, apart from the security concerns, no facility for long term archiving.

Clinton violated U.S.C. 18 { 1924, 798 } and executive order 13526 as well as FOIA. She was let off the hook for real obstruction of justice by deleting congressionally subpoenaed emails. This investigation into violating subpoena protocol may be revisited with the Durham investigation into FBI FISA abuses

I would have thought interpreters notes would be in the same category, I imagine these would be headed for long term archiving as well. I imagine they'd be available to historians for research in 50 years in the future. Trump actually confiscating the notes would be in breach of this requirement I would have thought?
Am I wrong?

My point was, that presidential conversations are protected with separation of powers under article II. No one is privy to those conversations. Some people don't understand how the constitution works, ORANGE MAN BAD is all they see. Trump is Putin's bot so therefor all conversations should be open to the public. If impeachment is unanimously voted on by the house then those record must be made available to house members and depending on sensitivity, would be done in a secure SKIFF, not to be confused with GRAND JURY testimony which is protected by rule 6{ E }

If the interpreters notes were indeed destroyed that would constitute a violation of the { PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT of 1978 } LOTS AND LOTS of theory on prosecuting such a violation.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So I can see the usual suspects are still on their same sides as before. I doubted that would have change anyhow in the time since i was last here
.
The left ( as defined by the right is anyone who is Democrat, or Liberal) is still logical, and the right ( as defined by their own purveyance of blindness to facts, defenders of the President), seems to be getting more and more bizarre in their defence.

Lots of entertainment for an outside observer.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So I can see the usual suspects are still on their same sides as before. I doubted that would have change anyhow in the time since i was last here
.
The left ( as defined by the right is anyone who is Democrat, or Liberal) is still logical, and the right ( as defined by their own purveyance of blindness to facts, defenders of the President), seems to be getting more and more bizarre in their defence.

Lots of entertainment for an outside observer.

Liberals are well on the right now....Democrats have all but abandon liberalism which is just alt-reich white nationalism.

 

[Articulate_and_Analytical]

While the talking heads over at Fox news tend to speak in right-wing talking points issued by their Republican leaders, one exception to this rule is Andrew Napolitano. He's a former judge, a stalwart Republican, and Fox's senior legal analyst. And after paying close attention to the testimony delivered throughout the past week, he enumerated what he believes the Democrats will put forth in Articles of Impeachment in an interview with ReasonTV:

"One is bribery...The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors, election law violation. The third crime will be obstruction of justice. The fourth will be interference with a witness, and the fifth may be lying under oath.

Napolitano was not just speculating as to how Democrats might proceed. He gave his own opinion of Trump's legal jeopardy going forward saying that "The evidence of his impeachable behavior at this point, in my view, is overwhelming." He further noted that Trump has failed to offer any coherent defense.

Trump, in fact, is prohibiting those he claims would exonerate him from testifying. They include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and Vice-President Mike Pence. You can be certain that if those people could help Trump prove his innocence he would drive them to the Capitol himself.

 

[allison22]

Trump is fucked.

They have enough on Trump to convict him (at least) for extortion and obstruction of justice. If Trump were an ordinary citizen, he would have been arrested by now. However, Trump has been using (abusing) his governmental powers to threaten witnesses, withhold evidence, offer pardons to his accomplices AND claim that as president, he's somehow above the law and cannot be legally prosecuted.

Abusing his powers in this way slows down the wheels of justice, but does not grind them to a halt.

As a candidate in 2015, Donald Trump said he would surround himself “only with the best and most serious people.”

Not quite.

On 15 November, Trump’s longtime friend and confidant Roger Stone was found guilty of lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He faces a maximum of 50 years in prison.

Stone will be only the most recent in a long line of Trump cronies to go to jail.

Late last year, Trump’s personal attorney and “fixer” Michael Cohen was convicted of multiple crimes including campaign finance violations in connection with hush-money payments to a porn star. He is now behind bars.

Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort is also in prison. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, will be sentenced in December. Former foreign policy advisor George Papadopolous has already served time.

Trump has surrounded himself not with the best and most serious but with the worst and most dangerous: thugs, liars and white supremacists.

And yet in recent weeks, others in the Trump administration have shown themselves to be among the best and most honorable public servants in America, though Trump doesn’t see them that way.

I’m talking about the career officials who have come before the House intelligence committee and, with dignity and restraint, confirmed Trump’s abuses of power.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman explained that he reported Trump’s 25 July phone call seeking Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s help in digging up dirt on Biden “out of a sense of duty,” because it was “improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a US citizen and political opponent.”

National Security Council officer Fiona Hill, after referring to her “legal and moral obligation” to appear before Congress, detailed how Trump’s team carried out a “domestic political errand” that helped Russia, and warned that Republicans play into Russia’s hands by denying its role in the 2016 election. Russia is “right now” seeking to interfere in 2020, she said, and “we are running out of time to stop them.”

Former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch spoke of “a crisis in the state department as the policy process is visibly unraveling.” Foreign service officers Jennifer Williams and George Kent and acting Ukraine ambassador William B Taylor sounded similar alarms.

All these men and women have distinguished records of public service. Some are highly decorated military officers. In coming forth, they have shown remarkable courage and patriotism.

Yet, true to form, Trump and his lackeys attack them.

The contrast could not be starker. On one side are dedicated public servants seeking to protect America. On the other side are Trump and his thugs, seeking to protect Trump.

 

[JackLuis]

Former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey subpoena to testify before Congress, judge rules

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to "invoke executive privilege where appropriate" during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal.

"It is clear to this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist," Jackson said in her ruling.

IS HJC the next step stone in the walk of Rethuglican shame?

 

[JackLuis]

Federal judge orders Pentagon and OMB to turn over documents discussing blocked Ukraine military aid

Congress can't get the info but FOIA can? Congress has been fucking this chicken for months and the press gets results!

On Monday, a federal judge ordered the release of over 200 documents relating to communications regarding the delay in military aid appropriated to Ukraine.

The order, from D.C. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, requires the release of correspondence between the Department of Defense, the Pentagon comptroller, and the Office of Management and Budget. Per CNN’s Manu Raju, 106 pages must be turned over to the Center for Public Integrity by December 12, and another 100 must be released by December 20 as part of a FOIA lawsuit.

 

[allison22]

Republicans are not merely violating their oaths of office for failing to support impeachment of a president who arguably has committed more serious high Crimes and Misdemeanors and acts of bribery than all his predecessors combined. None of Trump's predecessors sacrificed national security to obtain a political advantage. Donald Trump has been disloyal to the United States, not only in giving Russia a leg up in its war against Ukraine, but also in broadcasting Russian propaganda. And for that, Republicans are just as guilty.

The New York Times reports that “Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating ‘a fictional narrative.’ She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.” While that did not slow Republicans one bit, we now know that they are neither dupes nor Fox News pawns; they are deliberately assisting in a Russian propaganda operation.

 

[Dumpington]

allison22 writes: "Republicans are not merely violating their oaths of office for failing to support impeachment of a president who arguably has committed more serious high Crimes and Misdemeanors and acts of bribery than all his predecessors combined."

Yours is one of the dumber posts I've read, Allison, compared with all of the others here combined!

The Republicans in the U.S. Senate do NOT take their orders from Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, and for you to believe otherwise shows an incredibly high lack of understanding of how government works. Schiff wanted to impeach Trump for Russia collusion even before the release of the Mueller Report. He & San-Fran-Nan wanted Trump impeached simply for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016. Even several House Democrats now fully understand that Trump's not going anywhere, but they'll vote to impeach simply in the vain hope that it might cost him some votes in 2020 (except that it WON'T!)

"And for that, Republicans are just as guilty."

The Republicans had a secret weapon back in the 2010 midterms and again in 2012 & 2014, and that secret weapon was President Obama! His disastrous health care legislation cost his own party 63-House & 6-Senate seats in 2010 alone, and after the '14 midterms the G.O.P. controlled BOTH houses of congress! The Democrats won back the House in '18, but also got even WEAKER in the senate, following their blind acceptance of Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford's dishonest testimony in that 2018 failed effort to block the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh!

In the 2018 midterms, FOUR of the incumbent Democratic Party U.S. Senators who voted AGAINST Judge Kavanaugh LOST their seats! President Trump has a solid senate majority today thank to those foolish Dems who believed the middle-aged lady with the little girl's voice. But their votes last year ultimately make removing this president from office all-but-impossible, so thank you, Christine!

 

[DawnONight]

The Republican defense to the impeachment hearings seems NOT to claim that Trump is somehow innocent, but rather that Donald Trump has the power to do whatever he wants, even if it's illegal, improper, unconstitutional or even if it harms America's national security.

Please cite an example of a Republican claiming that.

 

[Leather_Lesbian]

Trump, in fact, is prohibiting those he claims would exonerate him from testifying. They include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and Vice-President Mike Pence. You can be certain that if those people could help Trump prove his innocence he would drive them to the Capitol himself.

Innocent people do not try to intimidate witnesses. Trump’s many attempts to silence witnesses is a tacit admission of guilt.

 

[Spandex_Girl]

Now that Giuliani is in trouble for his role in the Ukraine scandal, Trump is suddenly claiming that he had no role in sending Giuliani to the Ukraine or telling Giuliani to speak to anyone there.

Before, Giuliani got caught, Trump was all like, "Yeah, Giuliani is a highly respected guy. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call on the president of the Ukraine. I'll ask him and Attorney Genera Barr to call on the leader of the Ukraine. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If the leader of the Ukraine could speak to him that would be great."

Now Trump is all like, "Giuliani? I barely know the guy. I never told him to contact the Ukrainians. You know, Giuliani is kinda a loose cannon. He might have been doing stuff behind my back."

Yep. Trump is throwing Giuliani under the bus.

 

[DawnONight]

The Republican defense to the impeachment hearings seems NOT to claim that Trump is somehow innocent, but rather that Donald Trump has the power to do whatever he wants, even if it's illegal, improper, unconstitutional or even if it harms America's national security.

Please cite an example of a Republican claiming that.

No reply, just as I expected.

Meanwhile...

Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz claimed Democrats are running an illegitimate impeachment process and that President Trump does not deserve to be removed from office.

"I'm a liberal Democrat," Dershowitz said.... "And I'm on the side of Donald Trump on this issue....

"I voted for Hillary Clinton," Dershowitz said after watching five days of public impeachment hearings on the Ukraine scandal. "Because I believe in the Constitution more than I believe in partisan politics."

...

The Constitution dictates a high crime or misdemeanor must have taken place in order to remove a sitting president from office.

"There's no crime there," he said. "You can argue that maybe there is an abuse of the foreign policy, but there is no crime there."​

D. Mastrangelo, 'No crime there': Dershowitz backs Trump after impeachment hearings, Washington Examiner (Nov 22, 2019).

 

[The_adorable_slut]

Innocent people do not try to intimidate witnesses. Trump’s many attempts to silence witnesses is a tacit admission of guilt.

Remember during all the Benghazi investigations when Obama blocked access to documents and refused to let Hillary Clinton testify?

Of course you don't. Obama handed over everything and Hillary sat for ELEVEN HOUSE STRAIGHT, answering every question Congressional investigators put to her, because the Democrats had nothing to hide and they weren't tantrum-throwing man-babies.

 

[Dumpington]

HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE GETTING COLD FEET - but it's too late to back out now!

Several news sources speculate that some House Democrats are having second thoughts about impeaching President Trump. Such speculation is based partly on polls showing opinion turning against impeachment, especially among independents. Michigan House Democrat Brenda Lawrence recently said in a radio interview: “I don’t see the value of impeaching Trump," advocating a censure resolution instead. Of course, she promptly recanted after her comments became widely reported.

For the House Democrats to retreat now would be humiliating. There was NEVER any chance of the U.S. Senate removing this president from office. The effort all along has been to damage Trump’s re-election chances. All of that will be lost if the House now fails to pass an impeachment resolution, so the Dems have nowhere to go but forward.

Here are the numbers: the Democrats need 217 votes to impeach Trump. There are currently 233 Democrats in the House, so they can afford to lose 16 Democratic votes and still pass an impeachment resolution. Two House Democrats have already voted no. Nancy Pelosi will do everything she possibly can to achieve a near-unanimous impeachment vote among her remaining members.

Still, she must be a little worried about what lies in store in the Senate. There, the shoe will be on the other foot, with an increasingly aggressive Mitch McConnell in charge. The Senate Republicans will probably call Adam Schiff as a witness, along with the Democratic Party's whistleblower/activist who collaborated with Schiff’s staff to set this whole silly proceeding in motion. They are also likely to call Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses, to explore the Obama administration corruption that President Trump was trying to investigate in the first place.

So any trepidation that Democrats feel as they vote to impeach is understandable. Another important question is how minority voters respond to the Democrats’ obsession with this issue. A LOT of African-Americans, especially men, identify with Trump. Among Hispanics, too, Trump’s support has steadily grown. In both cases, this has had a LOT to do with the success of the president's economic policies, which have brought unprecedented prosperity to both the black and Hispanic communities.

Polls, as always, vary greatly, but in some, President Trump’s approval rating is well over 30% among African-Americans. We are seeing similar numbers among Hispanics. If Trump continues to make a strong push for minority votes over the next year, his support there could make it virtually impossible for any Democrat to beat him. Very few minority voters are impressed by Adam Schiff and the whistleblower Democratic Party activist.

So in the end, President Trump will be impeached, simply because the Democrats have no other options. From there on, the path gets rocky as the U.S. Senate “trial” will very likely turn into a fiasco for them. Beyond that, minority voters who care a great deal about jobs and very little about Ukrainian politics are likely to see the Democrats’ anti-Trump obsession as a huge waste of time & money. Ultimately, the Democrats will gain NOTHING from their impeachment obsession, and will almost certainly be net-LOSERS in the end!

 

[icanhelp1]

Remember during all the Benghazi investigations when Obama blocked access to documents and refused to let Hillary Clinton testify?

Of course you don't. Obama handed over everything and Hillary sat for ELEVEN HOUSE STRAIGHT, answering every question Congressional investigators put to her, because the Democrats had nothing to hide and they weren't tantrum-throwing man-babies.

Obama fought tooth and nail with congress and only handed over documents that were court ordered.

4 congressional panels found Hillary Clinton's State department in dereliction of duty.The Obama admin stonewalled every attempt to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. The NSC and the CIA were not allowed to answer question concerning Benghazi. The CIA, State Dept, Military, NSC and the Obama white house were found to be negligent, but they didn't go to jail because Obama would not release pertinent documents.

 

[Ziggins]

If nobody hates you, then you haven't done shit in politics.

 

[domroger]

Obama fought tooth and nail with congress and only handed over documents that were court ordered.

4 congressional panels found Hillary Clinton's State department in dereliction of duty.The Obama admin stonewalled every attempt to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. The NSC and the CIA were not allowed to answer question concerning Benghazi. The CIA, State Dept, Military, NSC and the Obama white house were found to be negligent, but they didn't go to jail because Obama would not release pertinent documents.

Could not keep away ,never mind you can try again next year .

 

[JackLuis]

The Impeachment should not be considered as "All About Trump." It is also a referendum on the Imperial Presidency. Our Political class has developed this attitude that they are "Great" and their opponents, in election matters, are "Dog Shit", however the case is that most of Congress is barley above a C rating, and a damned lot of them are F's.

Our President is supposed to enforce the laws but how many really do? Impeachment is our only way to remove them from office, but they are not above the Law. Consider Obama, did he prosecute Cheney for his war crimes, conducted out in the open, and in the shadows at his renditions sites,NO! If he had then we might have a much less corrupt government.

We need to call out the corrupt and the stupid shits who only think of their own power and not about what is best for the country.

As it currently is Trump can run around shorting the Porto Ricans after the Hurricane, slipping millions to this croneys for sweetheart deals, and extorting our allies. What will the next President do, after Trump is allowed to rip our Republic apart?

Think about it, only four President have been threatened with Impeachment, in over 200 years, but how many should have been corrected for their lawlessness and or hubris?

Reagan- Iran-Contra
Bush- Bay of Pigs-Panama-
Clinton- Perjury-obstruction of Justice-NAFTA
GW Bush- Iraq-Rendition-lying
Obama-Droning Americans-Not pursuing Cheney and Bush-Lybia-Syria
Trump-emoluments-extortion-lying-and the list continues.

If we want a Republic of and for the people, we have to stand up and be counted even if you'd like to have a beer with the President.

 

[Secretive_Victoria]

I love the way Trump says he only hires the best people.......but then he says that he doesn't know the people that he hired.

And he's never met the people that he hired.

And he certainly hasn't SPOKEN to any of the people that he hired!!

And if they testify under oath, you SHOULDN'T BELIEVE anything that these people say!!!!

I love how when Trump hires somebody for his administration, they're, "a genius" they're "the best", they're "fantastic", they're "a truly great American"

But when they get indicted or testify against him, suddenly they're "human scum," they're a "known liar". they're "mentally unstable" they're "the dumbest person in America".

Amazing how quickly they can go from being an honest, hard-working, patriotic super-genius to a lazy, idiotic criminal who hates America and has a known history of dishonesty.

 

[Secretive_Victoria]

I wish Fiona Hill had looked at Jim Jordan and said, "You appear to be very emotional right now. Would you like to take a few minutes to compose yourself?"

 

[Dumpington]

Secretive Victoria writes: "I wish Fiona Hill had looked at Jim Jordan and said, 'You appear to be very emotional right now. Would you like to take a few minutes to compose yourself?'"

I'd love to hear her saying that exact same thing to Adam Schiff!

All that the House Democrats can do now is vote to impeach and then allow the grown-ups in the U.S. Senate to take-over the process.

The Senate isn't going to allow hearsay evidence to be admitted into testimony, and they will put Hunter & Joe Biden on the witness stand to get to the bottom of that whole Ukraine debacle, and find out WHY the vice president's son was offered such a lucrative-high-paying job in that country!

And then the entire U.S. Senate will vote on whether or not Adam Schiff's case against President Trump is complete B-S or not.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Secretive Victoria writes: "I wish Fiona Hill had looked at Jim Jordan and said, 'You appear to be very emotional right now. Would you like to take a few minutes to compose yourself?'"

I'd love to hear her saying that exact same thing to Adam Schiff!

All that the House Democrats can do now is vote to impeach and then allow the grown-ups in the U.S. Senate to take-over the process.

The Senate isn't going to allow hearsay evidence to be admitted into testimony, and they will put Hunter & Joe Biden on the witness stand to get to the bottom of that whole Ukraine debacle, and find out WHY the vice president's son was offered such a lucrative-high-paying job in that country!

And then the entire U.S. Senate will vote on whether or not Adam Schiff's case against President Trump is complete B-S or not.

I bet they never allow it..."We had to investigate!! But it's so close to the election we thought it best for the people to decide." .

But then again they've been overly stupid lately....the orange man makes them do absurdly dumb things.

 

[Dumpington]

BotanyBoy writes: "But then again they've been overly stupid lately... the orange man makes them do absurdly dumb things."

The Democrats will have only five more years of being forced to deal with "the orange man" before he finally leaves office and they can relax!

Back in 1999, President Clinton faced impeachment by the House after perjuring himself, trying to get other witnesses to also commit perjury, and seeking to get other witnesses to conceal evidence in the investigation. This appeared to many to be a deliberate failure in his constitutional duty, which was the belief of the House when they brought impeachment charges against the president. But a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate did not agree, and President Clinton remained in office.

The allegations against President Trump have been framed in a similar manner, with the Democrats making it clear that they believe the president sought to hold up military aid to Ukraine for the purpose of getting Ukrainian officials to investigate interference in our 2016 election, along with looking into current corruption on the part of Hunter Biden. In other words, the Democrat case is that the president has put his own personal political interests ahead of the country’s interest in maintaining support for the Ukraine.

For President Trump and his defenders, what he did was no breach of duty but was, instead, prudent conduct of foreign affairs—the conduct of which the Constitution places within the discretion of the president. Ukraine, at least with the crew in office before the last Ukrainian election, was one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. A more sensible tactic by Democrats might have been seeking passing a censure vote against Trump. But, as the current proceedings have shown, good sense seems to be in short supply in the current House of Representatives.