impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[jimmyjazz 45957]

Anyone who thinks money laundering and other financial crimes were shelved once Trump took the Oval Office is fooling themselves.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anyone who thinks money laundering and other financial crimes were shelved once Trump took the Oval Office is fooling themselves.

Shelved?  I think they were increased tenfold.  Trump truly believes the Presidency makes him untouchable and judgment proof.  Any criminal in a similar situation will increase criminal activity.

We put a con man in charge of public money which he can quietly divert into his shell companies.  We also gave him the power to sell pay for play schemes. He has already been caught doing  both. Neither of those things were even available options to him prior to becoming President. 

You don't think he golfs every day at his own properties because he actually likes to golf, do you?  That whole SS entourage is paying double the market rate to be there.  Saudis rent rooms and don't even stay in them also. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 31472]

52 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Maybe no one should be struck by the fact that the deadline to appeal the Mazars Trump tax returns decision was moved up from Feb.11th to Dec 5th by SCOTUS.  But what other explanation is there other than it being a response to a sense of urgency associated with ongoing impeachment investigations ?  I can't find a date range for his requested returns apart from it spanning 6-8 years.  If that includes 2017 and 2018, then it certainly could involve crimes actively committed while occupying the WH as Trump has engaged in personal business and profiteering full steam ahead.

Deutsche bank financials tied to his loans could link directly to foreign financial compromise.  Evidence of money laundering would likely also have a direct bearing on foreign compromise/financial alliances and could directly spill over into ongoing campaign finance.

The Second Circuit should be ruling on the Deutsche Bank Trump financials any week now with an anticipated appeal to SCOTUS to follow.

The deadline was moved by the court when Trump moved to stay the order.  The House responded and asked for a 12/2 deadline.

From a Presidential immunity standpoint, the caselaw draws distinctions between court processes involving activity before assuming office and activity after assuming office and in official capacity.  I might assume that the subpoenas from Vance stop before he assumed office to take advantage of the more favorable consideration of court process relating to activity before assuming office (See Clinton v. Jones).

While the house has done a bang up job with the relatively narrow issue of Ukrainian bribery, they absolutely do not have the horses to make a decent case of a financial crime.

Edited November 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[sachick 1189]

I didn’t realize we have given Ukraine money three times now. I would think it’s a good point to bring up during impeachment inquiry.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

I didn’t realize we have given Ukraine money three times now. I would think it’s a good point to bring up during impeachment inquiry.

Not that anything matters, but you’re right. This could have been a very effective line of questioning:
“When was Hunter Biden named to the board of Burisma?”
“2014”
“Did Donald Trump have any issues giving aid to Ukraine in 2017?”
“No”
“Was Joe Biden an active candidate for President at this time?”
“No”
“Did Donald Trump have any issues giving aid to Ukraine in 2018?”
“No”
“Was Joe Biden an active candidate for President at this time?”
“No”
Did Donald Trump have any issues giving aid to Ukraine in 2019?”
“Yes”
“Was Joe Biden an active candidate for President at this time?”
“Yes”

[triplehorn 2664]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The deadline was moved by the court when Trump moved to stay the order.  The House responded and asked for a 12/2 deadline.

From a Presidential immunity standpoint, the caselaw draws distinctions between court processes involving activity before assuming office and activity after assuming office and in official capacity.  I might assume that the subpoenas from Vance stop before he assumed office to take advantage of the more favorable consideration of court process relating to activity before assuming office (See Clinton v. Jones).

While the house has done a bang up job with the relatively narrow issue of Ukrainian bribery, they absolutely do not have the horses to make a decent case of a financial crime.

The Mazars subpoenas of Trump/Trump Org are for up to time present which spans into his presidency, fwiw.

The House investigation into Trump financials isn't about Ukraine bribery.  It's about foreign compromise through corrupt financial practices (like money laundering) and/or being propped up by foreign cash (possibly having a up to a billion in Trump DB loans co-signed by Russian enablers).  There are clear legislative implications for reform on the face of it.

[Tuco 5076]

8 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Not that anything matters, but you’re right. This could have been a very effective line of questioning:
“When was Hunter Biden named to the board of Burisma?”
“2014”
“Did Donald Trump have any issues giving aid to Ukraine in 2017?”
“No”
“Was Joe Biden an active candidate for President at this time?”
“No”
“Did Donald Trump have any issues giving aid to Ukraine in 2018?”
“No”
“Was Joe Biden an active candidate for President at this time?”
“No”
Did Donald Trump have any issues giving aid to Ukraine in 2019?”
“Yes”
“Was Joe Biden an active candidate for President at this time?”
“Yes”

From the hearings, the Republican line of questioning would imply that the delay was due to a reevaluation of corruption efforts after Zelensky was elected.  

And how fucked up is it that we have to infer what the White House position is from how Republican Congressmen "hear" the evidence?  

[SquishMitten 10408]

Seems to me that another good strategy would be for Congress to pass a law that requires all candidates to disclose X number of years of tax returns as a condition precedent to being put on the ballot, or even better, before announcing a candidacy or being eligible to accept campaign contributions. That takes out any Constitutional issue the court is looking at because it would be codified going forward (2020 election). You’d have to get enough Senate votes to make it veto-proof, but it’s a reasonable enough position that they might be able to pull it off.

[Mdhorn 5949]

Or having to disclose dark money if not straight up make it illegal but that didn't happen. So here we are wondering how much worse it will erode. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Mdhorn

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

By the far the biggest problem is corporations and the super rich can buy elections and influence.

That and there's very little independent thought among politicians. They just all follow the herd.

[triplehorn 2664]

The qualifier in the first tweet is Mueller's *report* didn't address Trump financials.  However we know from past reporting that Mueller subpoenaed Trump/Deutsche Bank financials and is believed to have had access to Trump/Trump Org tax returns.  Keep in mind Mueller's report maintained a narrow focus while spinning off over a dozen investigations to other investigatory bodies.  It's certainly conceivable Congress is pursuing what Mueller already has/had, which could be an active part of ongoing investigations delegated by Mueller before Barr shut him down.  Very importantly, the House is in the unique position to readily present it to the public through the course of its impeachment inquiry. 

[Js1 85338]

On 11/24/2019 at 9:31 AM, Message Board User said:

 

O rly?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Yet another reason democrats need to advance this process beyond hearings before people lose interest and stop paying attention. 

The iron isn’t going to get any hotter. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31472]

9 hours ago, triplehorn said:

The Mazars subpoenas of Trump/Trump Org are for up to time present which spans into his presidency, fwiw.

The House investigation into Trump financials isn't about Ukraine bribery.  It's about foreign compromise through corrupt financial practices (like money laundering) and/or being propped up by foreign cash (possibly having a up to a billion in Trump DB loans co-signed by Russian enablers).  There are clear legislative implications for reform on the face of it.

I understand that it has wide ranging relevance for all kinds of inquiries.  I just don't think it's going to be particularly useful for impeachment purposes.  I don't believe the House has the investigative/prosecutorial ability to impeach for a financial crime of this sort.  And it would probably be a snoozer of epic proportions for the gallery.  And the timeframe is too short to start from whole cloth now or in June.

Also appears that you are correct, the Second Circuit opinion quotes the subpoenas and it's January 1, 2011 to present.  And apparently copied straight from the House subpoenas.  Fucking Vance.

Edited November 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Tuco 5076]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yet another reason democrats need to advance this process beyond hearings before people lose interest and stop paying attention. 

The Dems are certainly going to make mistakes in this process. If you only focus on them, and judge them against perfection, you may be tempted to believe these gaffes will sink them. 

But look at the other side for a moment.  Trump and the whole White House are under tremendous pressure.  Watch five minutes of Trump's 53 minute "interview" with Fox and Friends.  He's a crazy old man, rambling about debunked conspiracy theories.  Keep. Him Talking. The dude has literally stopped showing up at the office, and is running his impeachment defense from his living quarters. We are about two weeks away from him doing a press conference in an robe with kleenex boxes for slippers.  And it's not just Trump.  Mulvaney's damage control included announcing quid pro quo from a podium.  Pompeo and Perry, two major players in this, are resigning.  Bolton resigned and is considering turning state's evidence.  Trump has no identifiable press secretary to work the press. His first personal attorney is in prison and talking shit about him.  His second personal attorney is waiting to be indicted, and may be as crazy as Trump is. Trump is alone, confused, and unhealthy.  I'm in no particular hurry for this to resolve.  

(I would still support a deal that includes a Republican rebuke of the President, but not because I think the Dems are in trouble.) 

 

[Biff Tannen 45687]

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The Dems are certainly going to make mistakes in this process. If you only focus on them, and judge them against perfection, you may be tempted to believe these gaffes will sink them. 

But look at the other side for a moment.  Trump and the whole White House are under tremendous pressure.  Watch five minutes of Trump's 53 minute "interview" with Fox and Friends.  He's a crazy old man, rambling about debunked conspiracy theories.  Keep. Him Talking. The dude has literally stopped showing up at the office, and is running his impeachment defense from his living quarters. We are about two weeks away from him doing a press conference in an robe with kleenex boxes for slippers.  And it's not just Trump.  Mulvaney's damage control included announcing quid pro quo from a podium.  Pompeo and Perry, two major players in this, are resigning.  Bolton resigned and is considering turning state's evidence.  Trump has no identifiable press secretary to work the press. His first personal attorney is in prison and talking shit about him.  His second personal attorney is waiting to be indicted, and may be as crazy as Trump is. Trump is alone, confused, and unhealthy.  I'm in no particular hurry for this to resolve.  

(I would still support a deal that includes a Republican rebuke of the President, but not because I think the Dems are in trouble.) 

 

When did I miss Pompeo is resigning?

[Tuco 5076]

There were reports about 6 days ago that Pompeo was planning on resigning, and potentially running for a Kansas Senate seat.  But he has since denied it, so nevermind. 

 

[kevwun 15788]

Perry did the same thing and it ended up being true.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

I never said I was resigning. I said I was re-signing. 

[triplehorn 2664]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I understand that it has wide ranging relevance for all kinds of inquiries.  I just don't think it's going to be particularly useful for impeachment purposes.  I don't believe the House has the investigative/prosecutorial ability to impeach for a financial crime of this sort.  And it would probably be a snoozer of epic proportions for the gallery.  And the timeframe is too short to start from whole cloth now or in June.

Also appears that you are correct, the Second Circuit opinion quotes the subpoenas and it's January 1, 2011 to present.  And apparently copied straight from the House subpoenas.  Fucking Vance.

If Trump's financials show that we have a partner of transnational criminal organizations occupying the WH, what a snore that would be.  Even if House doesn't point to a statutory crime, exposing that kind of criminal corruption shows in flashing red lights why Trump would engage in serial obstruction of justice to hide his acceptance of Russian interference, why he would meet with Putin in private with no witnesses or transcripts, purportedly to hide his personal dealings, and make not a single decision that would do something other than benefit Putin's mafia state and initiatives to increase its leverage.  The Ukraine bribery scheme, at it's core is also a mutual beneficial plot about undercutting Ukraine on Russia's behalf and corruptly influencing our 2020 election for Trump.  So no, it's really not starting from whole cloth.  It's all related and to the extent all the corners of the picture can get filled out, it makes a more compelling public case for conviction and removal - or removal of complicit Senate acquitters.

[Homercles 10205]

20 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I never said I was resigning. I said I was re-signing. 

[texastough 1129]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I understand that it has wide ranging relevance for all kinds of inquiries.  I just don't think it's going to be particularly useful for impeachment purposes.  I don't believe the House has the investigative/prosecutorial ability to impeach for a financial crime of this sort. 

Financial crimes may not fit as neatly into "high crimes" while POTUS has been in office, but they may be very useful for moving public opinion toward overwhelming support for removal. If it becomes clear that he has been defrauding everyone he can, including the American people, that is a lot easier for gullible olds to understand than the Ukraine thing.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

How does "the House can impeach for anything it wants" not include "financial crimes"?  That makes no sense.  If there is evidence the President is a crook, then he should not be beyond reach from removal.

Note:  I get it, he isn't going to be removed.  That doesn't mean he can't be impeached.

[Dbeasy 15051]

If the Dems don’t proceed, the Republicans will seize on that as proof that they were wasting everyone’s time.

If the Dems proceed, the Republicans will complain that they are wasting everyone’s time.

[texastough 1129]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How does "the House can impeach for anything it wants" not include "financial crimes"?  That makes no sense.  If there is evidence the President is a crook, then he should not be beyond reach from removal.

Note:  I get it, he isn't going to be removed.  That doesn't mean he can't be impeached.

They can impeach for anything that he does while in office. I think the assumption is the financials will show crimes he committed before he was elected

[Dnaguy 11964]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

If the Dems don’t proceed, the Republicans will seize on that as proof that they were wasting everyone’s time.

If the Dems proceed, the Republicans will complain that they are wasting everyone’s time.

 

So its a sofie’s catch 22?

[jimmyjazz 45957]

1 minute ago, texastough said:

They can impeach for anything that he does while in office. I think the assumption is the financials will show crimes he committed before he was elected

That's not my assumption whatsoever.  Hence, my statement yesterday that anyone thinking he shelved his financial malfeasance once elected is a fool.

[Patrick Bateman 3914]

CNN poll on impeachment, basically it's unmoved.

Women continue to show they're smarter than men.

The reason there's been little movement either way on the subject?  Everyone has made up their minds.  Basically going to need a video or audio or a bombshell witness to change a lot of people's minds.

 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

Y'all are missing the point.  I'm not saying he CAN"T be impeached for financial crimes.

I'm saying it's difficult for a borderline competent authority like the House to prove.  It would involve forensic accounting expert witnesses and the testimony would be boring as fuck.

It would take a competent prosecuting authority six months or more to work up a case of mortgage/bank fraud.  See Manafort (five months and it's likely he was already under investigation and the indictment was rushed to beat limitations by Mueller's admission).  Granted, the burden of proof in impeachment is not reasonable doubt, but I have zero confidence in the ability of the House to make a decent case of a financial crime even in the nature of bank fraud, much less money laundering.

Nor did I ever say that I thought his financial misfeasance stopped when he assumed office.

The immunity law, such as it is, draws distinctions between actions occurring prior to taking office and those in office and in official capacity, the latter being more likely to receive some form of immunity, from investigation or prosecution.  There would be benefit to those investigating to confine the topics of investigation and discovery to timeframes preceding taking office.

And, that's a valid point that high crimes and misdemeanors prior to taking office probably aren't properly the subject of impeachment.

And while I agree that Trumpco is probably doing business as usual post-inauguration, I suspect it would be tougher to tie those shenanigans directly to Trump.  I doubt he's signing any financial statements or loan applications as president.  Someone else is.

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[kevwun 15788]

The financial stuff is better left to the State of New York I think.  He can't be pardoned for them and they will quite happily ruin his business "empire".

Edited November 26, 2019 by kevwun

[Dnaguy 11964]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Y'all are missing the point.  I'm not saying he CAN"T be impeached for financial crimes.

I'm saying it's difficult for a borderline competent authority like the House to prove.  It would involve forensic accounting expert witnesses and the testimony would be boring as fuck.

It would take a competent prosecuting authority six months or more to work up a case of mortgage/bank fraud.  See Manafort (five months).  Granted, the burden of proof in impeachment is not reasonable doubt, but I have zero confidence in the ability of the House to make a decent case of a financial crime even in the nature of bank fraud, much less money laundering.

 

The financial documents getting released are for headlines that embarrass the president when we all find out that he’s not as rich as he says. - Highly likely

In addition, it may bear some easy-to-see financial fraud fruit if there are egregious lies. - Less likely

Will likely expose systemic fraud over multiple years that would open him , his kids, and the Trump org to prosecution... if he didn’t have the office of the presidency protecting him - likely but will take the time you describe.

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

7 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

 

The financial documents getting released are for headlines that embarrass the president when we all find out that he’s not as rich as he says. - Highly likely

In addition, it may bear some easy-to-see financial fraud fruit if there are egregious lies. - Less likely

Will likely expose systemic fraud over multiple years that would open him , his kids, and the Trump org to prosecution... if he didn’t have the office of the presidency protecting him - likely but will take the time you describe.

 

 

 

Don't disagree with any of that.  My only point is that it's not particularly good impeachment fodder, most likely, both in the matter of timing and for more substantive reasons.

Edited November 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 33871]

it would be if it could be proven he was pilfering public money

[Dnaguy 11964]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Don't disagree with any of that.  My only point is that it's not particularly good impeachment fodder, most likely.

Yep. 

Can you imagine Jim Jordan reading Trumps taxes to try and confuse everyone?

 

 

[4th&Five 41554]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

no surprise here:

 

[Tuco 5076]

I was curious how FoxNews was following the impeachment.  They had a ground breaking report on a Democratic strategist who warned the Dems against pursuing it. 

Quote

A top Democratic campaign consultant and former pollster for President Bill Clinton is pleading with party leaders to abandon plans to vote on the impeachment of President Trump or risk electoral disaster.

In an interview on "Fox and Friends" last week, Trump predicted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., would not see the impeachment process through to a vote.

...

Democratic strategist Doug Schoen suggested that he hopes that the president is right.

"I am praying for censure. It can turn what could be a loss into a certain victory," he said, arguing that Pelosi should forgo impeachment and instead vote to publicly reprimand the president.

"While the Democratic electorate is almost unanimously in favor of impeachment, swing voters in swing states... are decidedly mixed, if not negative," the polling expert explained on Fox Nation's "Deep Dive." 

"And given that states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida -- ones the Democrats have to win in some combination to win the presidential election, it's hard for me to see that impeachment is anything but a very problematic issue for the party," he argued.

So, let's talk about Doug Shoen for a second, and what might affect his analysis. 

From wikipedia: 

Quote

In 2000, Ukrainian steel oligarch Victor Pinchuk hired Schoen on a $40,000 per month retainer.^[7] In 2004, Schoen introduced Pinchuk to Hillary Clinton.^[7] He also did work for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and later became associated with the People United Means Action movement of disaffected Clinton supporters who refused to support Barack Obama.^[8][9] Schoen was a consultant for Jeff Greene in the 2010 Florida Senate election.^[10]

The firm was sold to WPP plc in 2001.^[6] Schoen left the firm later to work for news media.^[6] In 2010, Schoen hosted a fundraiser for Republican congressional candidate John Gomez.^[11]

Pinchuk donated $13.1 million to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Schoen's introduction.^[7] In 2011, Schoen registered as a foreign agent lobbying on behalf of Pinchuk.^[7] Between September 2011 and November 2012, Schoen arranged nearly a dozen meetings between Pinchuk and senior State Department officials, including Melanne Verveer.^[7] In September 2015, Pinchuk donated $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in exchange for a 20-minute video appearance by Donald Trump shown at a policy conference that year in Kiev.^[12] Michael Cohen solicited Schoen for the donation from Pinchuk, which was the largest outside donation the Trump Foundation received that year.^[12] In March 2017, former Trump aide Monica Crowley registered as a foreign agent working for Pinchuk under Schoen's direction.^[13]

So, Fox is trotting out a lobbyist who is representing a Ukrainian oligarch who was Trump's largest contributor to Trump's crooked charity.  They are then representing him as a Democratic strategist, and not fucking mentioning his obvious conflict of interest. Seems legit. 

 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Y'all are missing the point.  I'm not saying he CAN"T be impeached for financial crimes.

I'm saying it's difficult for a borderline competent authority like the House to prove.  It would involve forensic accounting expert witnesses and the testimony would be boring as fuck.

It would take a competent prosecuting authority six months or more to work up a case of mortgage/bank fraud.  See Manafort (five months and it's likely he was already under investigation and the indictment was rushed to beat limitations by Mueller's admission).  Granted, the burden of proof in impeachment is not reasonable doubt, but I have zero confidence in the ability of the House to make a decent case of a financial crime even in the nature of bank fraud, much less money laundering.

 

Paper crimes are literally black and white.  open and shut.  pretty quick and easy to prove.  The jury had no problem convicting Paul Manafort for his financial fraud and money laundering in short order.

Re: "It would take a competent prosecuting authority six months or more to work up a case of mortgage/bank fraud," I'm going out on a limb here, but there's a fair chance some investigative body that can share their evidence and findings with the House has already done that work.  Don't know, but maybe it could be handed over and used to buttress or advance House findings for impeachment of a sitting POTUS.

[Tuco 5076]

The Manafort jury was forced to sit in a room and watch all of the evidence play out, with witnesses testifying under oath, and the judge restricting irrelevant data.  

That won't happen in an impeachment hearing or trial. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

The Dems are certainly going to make mistakes in this process. If you only focus on them, and judge them against perfection, you may be tempted to believe these gaffes will sink them. 

Are the democrats merely trying to score political points for the 2020 election?

Or are the democrats also trying, in good faith, to remove a lawless criminal president from office? 

I think the goal of the democrats isn’t well defined enough and that’s the biggest problem.  

Politically I think the democrats are mostly playing with house money here.  However, in my personal opinion, if the goal is to serve the best interests of the country via removal of Trump, then they are pussyfooting at an irritating pace.

[triplehorn 2664]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Politically I think the democrats are mostly playing with house money here.  However, in my personal opinion, if the goal is to serve the best interests of the country via removal of Trump, then they are pussyfooting at an irritating pace.

For a couple hundred million Americans, Thanksgiving and Christmas are real obstacles to sustained focus and energy on impeachment. 

The real push has to be after the start of the new year, which also aligns with the courts opening the evidentiary and testimonial floodgates.

 

[Tuco 5076]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are the democrats merely trying to score political points for the 2020 election?

Or are the democrats also trying, in good faith, to remove a lawless criminal president from office? 

Why not both?

I'd say it's to score political points, and then see what that can be traded for.  It's unlikely there will be enough points to remove the President.  The price is simply too high for the GOP (and basic ethics too lacking.) I think censure is a reasonable, albeit a stretch, target.  A censure "conviction" without Trump acquiescing could open up the Trump/GOP split.  But, political points have value if they can be converted to House and Senate seats. It has values if it even makes it 0.1% less likely Trump gets elected.  It has values if it motivates people to become more involved in politics. 

And maybe, just maybe, both parties will be more concerned about supporting a crooked candidate in the future.  There needs to be damage. 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

48 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Yep. 

Can you imagine Jim Jordan reading Trumps taxes to try and confuse everyone?

 

 

It would be such a shitshow.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

17 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Paper crimes are literally black and white.  open and shut.  pretty quick and easy to prove.  The jury had no problem convicting Paul Manafort for his financial fraud and money laundering in short order.

Re: "It would take a competent prosecuting authority six months or more to work up a case of mortgage/bank fraud," I'm going out on a limb here, but there's a fair chance some investigative body that can share their evidence and findings with the House has already done that work.  Don't know, but maybe it could be handed over and used to buttress or advance House findings for impeachment of a sitting POTUS.

They can be, when you have an individual applying for residential mortgages, preparing and signing financial statements at odds with his tax returns.

For big corporate interests, and for money laundering, not so much.

A real prosecutor could gin up a case and hand it over to the House, possibly, but, as DNAguy notes, I think it would be an absolute shit show in public hearings.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

A censure isn’t a consequence that fits the crime.  

Trump got caught red handed trying to extort a conspiracy with a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election just after he was credibly reported of obstructing justice in an investigation of a possible conspiracy with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election. 

This is bananas. 

[Tuco 5076]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

A censure isn’t a consequence that fits the crime.  

Trump got caught red handed trying to extort a conspiracy with a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 election just after he was credibly reported of obstructing justice in an investigation of a possible conspiracy with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election. 

This is bananas. 

Yeah, no shit.  The guy is intentionally separating brown families, a brutal policy which will echo for decades.  And nothing happens. 

If you are looking for justice, watch a movie.  Donald Trump will not be brought to justice.  But, if it's any condolence, I think he is miserable right now.  That makes me feel a little better. 

But my big concern is to fight back against the forces that got us here.  

[elfenix 34241]

Quote

Economy 55-40
Budget 37-50
Trade 42-52

"i approve of his handling of the economy but not the way he's using the two major methods by which the president is able to influence the economy" is a weird take. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by elfenix

[RomaVicta 29908]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

From the hearings, the Republican line of questioning would imply that the delay was due to a reevaluation of corruption efforts after Zelensky was elected.  

And how fucked up is it that we have to infer what the White House position is from how Republican Congressmen "hear" the evidence?  

Yes. Trump and the GOPs were quite disappointed that the corrupt guy was ousted by a huge majority and replaced with a genuine anti-corruption candidate.

How am I supposed to cut a deal with a guy like that?

[Dnaguy 11964]

9 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"i approve of his handling of the economy but not the way he's using the two major methods by which the president is able to influence the economy" is a weird take. 

Is it though?

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45687]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are the democrats merely trying to score political points for the 2020 election?

Or are the democrats also trying, in good faith, to remove a lawless criminal president from office? 

I think the goal of the democrats isn’t well defined enough and that’s the biggest problem.  

Politically I think the democrats are mostly playing with house money here.  However, in my personal opinion, if the goal is to serve the best interests of the country via removal of Trump, then they are pussyfooting at an irritating pace.

One of the D reps in Michigan saying she thinks censure is the way to go now.  She's a coward.