President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

manual_man · 27-01-2020 09:04PM

kowloon wrote: »

I didn't make it personal, you ignored the question when asked, so I think it was fair to say it throws other claims into doubt until that was still unaddressed.
As for bills not being enacted: The parties simply aren't working together, you can't reasonably point the blame at one party.

Well it seemed personal to me. I don't answer every question on here, and i don't expect anyone else to do likewise. However if i've made a mistake and realize it then i'll admit to it.

You're right they aren't working together. It's certainly not good. And i've said that i can understand people questioning McConnell's decision re. Garland (while also explaining that it wouldn't in reality have made any actual difference). I've pointed out other facts too. Senate Democrats actions in 2013 really set the tone for everything that has followed. Bitter partisanship.

And Senate Democrats unprecedented and deliberate slow-walking of Trump's judicial nominations ever since he took office was always going to add to the hostility - and so McConnell and Senate Republicans have, i guess, responded in kind as regards legislation passed through the House since Democrats took control in 2018...

ohnonotgmail · 27-01-2020 09:08PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Interesting chain of events now that it is being reported in Bolton’s book that, according to him, Trump did tie the temporary hold on Ukrainian money to a Biden investigation.

Democrats are now chomping at the bit!

It seems Democrats are now interested in four witnesses testimonies: Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, John Bolton, and Michael Duffey. The White House will surely make claims of executive privilege of all four. The Democrats might only get Blair and Duffey to testify as executive privilege claims are their strongest when the people involved have regular dealings with the president and are involved with providing advice as in Bolton and Mulvaney. Blair and Duffey only carried out the president’s directive and implemented a hold on aid to Ukraine. Also, claims of executive privilege are strongest when they involve military or diplomatic secrets matters.

So is John Bolton a pissed off ex-employee or evil genius? The ‘bombshell’ is sure to make his new book an instant bestseller and make him lots of money. But Bolton is also a strong constitutionalist, and it is highly doubtful he’d defy claims of executive privilege by the president. If he's just pissed at Trump he'll never work in Washington again, unless he becomes the new darling of MSNBC or CNN, but then it will only be short term.

trump has publicly commented on boltons statements. executive privilege is out the window

kowloon · 27-01-2020 09:08PM

manual_man wrote: »

Well it seemed personal to me. I don't answer every question on here, and i don't expect anyone else to do likewise. However if i've made a mistake and realize it then i'll admit to it.

Fair enough, my apologies if my post was a little barbed.

Boggles · 27-01-2020 09:12PM

manual_man wrote: »

And Senate Democrats unprecedented and deliberate slow-walking of Trump's judicial nominations ever since he took office was always going to add to the hostility - and so McConnell and Senate Republicans have, i guess, responded in kind as regards legislation passed through the House since Democrats took control in 2018...

That's the second time you have stated that, it's simply not true.

The Republicans did it whole sale under Obama.

It is the reason the filibuster for lower judges was done away with.

woohoo!!! · 27-01-2020 09:17PM

I thought the defence was decent there. Starr was meandering, eloquent but lacked relevance in the most part. The second guy put forward a rationale as to why there was a delay, that a meeting did occur and testimony that conflicted with the House Managers line. However, the context neglected the timing of a white blower and it being public knowledge of what was being alleged. Still though doing a decent job with what they've been handed.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 09:18PM

duploelabs wrote: »

You can't claim executive privilege for senate impeachments, Nixon tried and failed

I believe you are incorrect that a president can't claim executive privilege in a senate impeachment when it comes to witnesses.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 09:22PM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I thought the defence was decent there. Starr was meandering, eloquent but lacked relevance in the most part. The second guy put forward a rationale as to why there was a delay, that a meeting did occur and testimony that conflicted with the House Managers line. However, the context neglected the timing of a white blower and it being public knowledge of what was being alleged. Still though doing a decent job with what they've been handed.

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

duploelabs · 27-01-2020 09:23PM

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe you are incorrect that a president can't claim executive privilege in a senate impeachment when it comes to witnesses.

Nope

July 9, the day following oral arguments, all eight justices (Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself due to his close association with several Watergate conspirators, including Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, prior to his appointment to the Court) indicated to each other that they would rule against the president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

and nope

https://www.justsecurity.org/68104/executive-privilege-is-no-bar-to-john-boltons-testimony-in-the-senate/

ohnonotgmail · 27-01-2020 09:24PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

trump has publicly commented on boltons statements. executive privilege is out the window

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe you are incorrect that a president can't claim executive privilege in a senate impeachment when it comes to witnesses.

trump cannot now claim executive privilege on boltons statements

duploelabs · 27-01-2020 09:25PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

That's been proven incorrect and a plant by the IRA

Boggles · 27-01-2020 09:27PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Seriously this conspiracy theory again? :rolleyes:

It's been debunked by Trumps own people.

manual_man · 27-01-2020 09:35PM

Boggles wrote: »

That's the second time you have stated that, it's simply not true.

The Republicans did it whole sale under Obama.

It is the reason the filibuster for lower judges was done away with.

The reason Democrats did away with the filibuster was not to do with slow-walking... It was to do with Democrats nominating judges who weren't receiving the support of a sufficient number of Senators... despite the Democrats having a 53-47 majority at the time. They were frustrated, and in making the ill conceived rule change, only ensured a widening of partisan divide.

woohoo!!! · 27-01-2020 09:42PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

What the trial and the submitted evudence has patently demonstrated and this is not disputed by the White House, US intelligence agencies and most accurately put by the FBI head, is that there is no (credible) indication that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections. It is nothing but Kremlin propaganda designed solely to take the spotlight of Russian actions which indeed are ongoing.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 09:48PM

duploelabs wrote: »

That's been proven incorrect and a plant by the IRA

Please show us proof it was incorrect. Opinions don't count.

Boggles · 27-01-2020 09:52PM

manual_man wrote: »

The reason Democrats did away with the filibuster was not to do with slow-walking... It was to do with Democrats nominating judges who weren't receiving the support of a sufficient number of Senators... despite the Democrats having a 53-47 majority at the time. They were frustrated, and in making the ill conceived rule change, only ensured a widening of partisan divide.

Saying it yet again doesn't make it true, they indulged in slow walking wholesale and then just outright didn't confirm any picks.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/trumps-hollow-complaint/

So for the last time you are very much incorrect.

duploelabs · 27-01-2020 09:56PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Please show us proof it was incorrect. Opinions don't count.

See wohoos reply

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 09:59PM

duploelabs wrote: »

See wohoos reply

I did. Still looking for the proof.

duploelabs · 27-01-2020 10:12PM

notobtuse wrote: »

I did. Still looking for the proof.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-planted-conspiracy-ukraine-sabotaged-2016-campaign-washington-post-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-ukraine-joe-biden-russian-disinformation-election-tampering/

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 10:15PM

So, Alexander Vindman (one of the Democrat’s key witnesses who is trying to help Democrats impeach the President) has a twin brother in charge of reviewing all NSC publications including John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript. And suddenly it is leaked to the New York Times. And this guy is supposed to be the ethics lawyer for the NSC?

I’m suuuuuuure the manuscript being leaked to the New York Times was purely coincidental.

woohoo!!! · 27-01-2020 10:17PM

notobtuse wrote: »

I did. Still looking for the proof.

Who hacked the DNC in 2016? The answer to that answers your question. If you believe it was Russia, then the crowdstrike theory is false and note that investigations have determined it was Russia. However if you believe it was Ukraine, then you believe the crowdstrike theory for which there is no evidence. This is what Trump and his pals seem to believe.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 10:33PM

duploelabs wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-planted-conspiracy-ukraine-sabotaged-2016-campaign-washington-post-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-ukraine-joe-biden-russian-disinformation-election-tampering/

Thanks

"The Kremlin may have been.."

Somewhat lacking in verifiable details, I’d say. Were these agencies and sources the same one’s who claimed they had solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia?

duploelabs · 27-01-2020 10:46PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks

"The Kremlin may have been.."

Somewhat lacking in verifiable details, I’d say. Were these agencies and sources the same one’s who claimed they had solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia?

I suppose you know more than the director of the FBI then?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/fbi-director-wray-says-no-indication-ukraine-interference-2016-election/4380050002/

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473766-fbi-head-rejects-claims-of-ukrainian-2016-interference

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 10:57PM

duploelabs wrote: »

I suppose you know more than the director of the FBI then?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/fbi-director-wray-says-no-indication-ukraine-interference-2016-election/4380050002/

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473766-fbi-head-rejects-claims-of-ukrainian-2016-interference

I know one former director of the FBI who is looking at potential jail time.

Rudy Giuliani stated over the weekend he has vast amounts of evidence to prove there was corruption by Ukraine and the Bidens and will be presenting it over the next several weeks.

It would be shocking if once again all this reporting by our wonderful media was wrong… NOT! I think we all have reason to be a little leery of what came out of the FBI regarding Trump before 2019. Let’s see what Rudy has.

ohnonotgmail · 27-01-2020 11:04PM

notobtuse wrote: »

I know one former director of the FBI who is looking at potential jail time.

Rudy Giuliani stated over the weekend he has vast amounts of evidence to prove there was corruption by Ukraine and the Bidens and will be presenting it over the next several weeks.

It would be shocking if once again all this reporting by our wonderful media was wrong… NOT! I think we all have reason to be a little leery of what came out of the FBI regarding Trump before 2019. Let’s see what Rudy has.

sure he does. rudy is really honest and truthful

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 11:20PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sure he does. rudy is really honest and truthful

And the FBI was? Three years of investigations based on lies by the FBI and sources that were fake. But that's okay, I guess.

The report by Wray came out in Dec 2019... five months after the call from Trump regarding Ukraine. Trump acted on the information he thought was reasonable at the time. Or is it okay for everyone else but Trump to act on information deemed plausible at the time?

woohoo!!! · 27-01-2020 11:21PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks

"The Kremlin may have been.."

Somewhat lacking in verifiable details, I’d say. Were these agencies and sources the same one’s who claimed they had solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia?

We know Trump believes it, he's said as much, it in part explains his hard for Bidens and Ukraine. Problem is, no evidence and he really should listen to his own people. But putin says so, so good enough for Trump. However this erroneous belief by Trump is precisely the thing that has landed himself in this whole mess. It's one thing for a random poster on here to be spouting conspiracy theories, it becomes a problem when the US president also is motivated by it, and acts contrary to actual US foreign policy, such is his dislike of Biden.

Interestingly we saw Trumps defence talking for about half a hour about Hunter Biden and a mere 5 minutes about Trumps official reasons for delaying aid to Ukraine. The actual defence, 5 minutes. Whataboutery, as much time as possible.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 11:23PM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

We know Trump believes it, he's said as much, it in part explains his hard for Bidens and Ukraine. Problem is, no evidence and he really should listen to his own people. But putin says so, so good enough for Trump. However this erroneous belief by Trump is precisely the thing that has landed himself in this whole mess. It's one thing for a random poster on here to be spouting conspiracy theories, it becomes a problem when the US president also is motivated by it, and acts contrary to actual US foreign policy, such is his dislike of Biden.

Interestingly we saw Trumps defence talking for about half a hour about Hunter Biden and a mere 5 minutes about Trumps official reasons for delaying aid to Ukraine. The actual defence, 5 minutes. Whataboutery, as much time as possible.

Trumps lawyers were addressing the charges against him.

woohoo!!! · 27-01-2020 11:32PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Trumps lawyers were addressing the charges against him.

I've already commented that they're doing a decent job. I would expect to see hours, by several of their obviously skilled lawyers drilling down into the rationale, the dates, the mundane step by step details with documented evidence on this administrations efforts re Ukraine. But it's not happening.

Perhaps the material witnesses and evidence do far withheld can clear this up.

manual_man · 27-01-2020 11:38PM

Blindly trusting assertions by intelligence agencies is a recipe for disaster. Especially when we've seen some of the behavior by the people leading them. Comey and Brennan come immediately to mind. Go back a bit further and see what happened re. WMD's before Iraq invasion. Assertions should be viewed with extreme suspicion, and there should be demands for hard evidence. For, much as some people would like to put their heads in the sand and pretend it's not possible, yes it happens that sometimes corrupt and bias people worm their way to positions of influence in these agencies. I'm not convinced by the assertions made re. Russian election interference, not because i don't believe it's possible, but rather by the lack of hard evidence to back up the claims. Mere claims don't equal evidence, and no one should ever believe they do. The Mueller report and I.C. assessment are stock full of claims and assertions - less so on hard evidence that can corroborate the claims made... We should all be asking why that is.

This report by Aaron Maté is an excellent read in this regard:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

Sean.3516 · 28-01-2020 03:22AM

Igotadose wrote: »

And it doesn't matter. High crimes aren't jaywalking. Using the power of the USG to promote personal gain is a high crime. If that isn't, then nothing's a high crime and the POTUS can do whatever he/she wants.

Think of what you’ve just typed here and how broad you’re defining what a high crime is.

So using your power as a government official to further your personal gains is a high crime? You then say that if this isn’t a high crime then nothing is. Wrong. If this is a high crime then EVERYTHING a politician does is.

Seriously, is not everything that a politician does in office not in some way calculated to make sure he/she wins the next election? And by extension to further their own interests. Of course Trump was acting to further his political interests on that phone call. So was Obama when he began pulling out from Iraq in 2009 and when he told the Russian PM to lay off as he would be able to grant him “more flexibility” after the 2012 election. Of course Obama was using his power to further what he believed to be the US national interest. But there’s no question that he wasn’t acting in his own political interest also.

The fact is that a president as head of the executive branch of govt. has the right to further the US national interest (as they see it). And you can be guaranteed that the national interest as a particular president sees it will line up with that president’s own personal goals and interests. There is no way consistently separate these two things.

Trump had every right to use aid to leverage Ukraine into investigating alleged Ukrainian interference in 2016 and the Biden related matters if he deemed this to be in the US national interest. If it ended up helping him out politically, then you know what that makes him? A politician.

The question here is whether or not some statutory crime committed was committed. An actual crime. “Abuse of power” doesn’t count since this assumes that the US national interest was being pursued. That the goal was purely personal/political. As I’ve said before, in order to prove abuse of power you need to hear from either Trump or someone who spoke directly to Trump that this was purely about taking out Biden in the 2020 election. So far this has not happened and is highly unlikely to happen.

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments