impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Biff Tannen 45738]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

This part got my spidey senses tingling:

 

Yep.  I really would like to see at least the obstruction from the Mueller report in the articles.  That is black and white.  Let's throw in emoluments too.  Also black and white.

Of course, if we are playing to the lowest common denominator of the American public, which we are, even the Ukraine situation is probably going to be brain overload.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  I really would like to see at least the obstruction from the Mueller report in the articles.  That is black and white.  Let's throw in emoluments too.  Also black and white.

Of course, if we are playing to the lowest common denominator of the American public, which we are, even the Ukraine situation is probably going to be brain overload.

Doesn't matter. I learned early in life that it's better for me to only get in trouble for one thing than a shit ton of things. 

[wildcat09 29387]

14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  I really would like to see at least the obstruction from the Mueller report in the articles.  That is black and white.  Let's throw in emoluments too.  Also black and white.

Of course, if we are playing to the lowest common denominator of the American public, which we are, even the Ukraine situation is probably going to be brain overload.

The fact that we're playing to the lowest common denominator means we should flood them with corruption stories, not just try to explain one to them. We're talking about the type of people who were convinced that Hillary was corrupt because Republicans literally just said the word "emails" over and over and over.  They'll never fully understand, no matter how clearly any particular instance of corruption is explained, why it's so bad, but some can be convinced that he's the most corrupt president ever if we just flood their brains with a hundred different examples even if they don't really fully grasp them.

[Biff Tannen 45738]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The fact that we're playing to the lowest common denominator means we should flood them with corruption stories, not just try to explain one to them. We're talking about the type of people who were convinced that Hillary was corrupt because Republicans literally just said the word "emails" over and over and over.  They'll never fully understand, no matter how clearly any particular instance of corruption is explained, why it's so bad, but some can be convinced that he's the most corrupt president ever if we just flood their brains with a hundred different examples even if they don't really fully grasp them.

Personally, I agree, but there is the risk of people tuning out even more than they already are because the Rs have already muddied the waters so much.  Fuck it Dude, let's go bowling.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Every day this motherfucker isn’t impeached is like a permission slip to commit more crimes.

[Biff Tannen 45738]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Every day this motherfucker isn’t impeached is like a permission slip to commit more crimes.

2020 after his "acquittal" is going to be fucking insane.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Every day this motherfucker isn’t impeached is like a permission slip to commit more crimes.

I've halfway convinced myself that was Pelosi's long game all along.  She knew he couldn't keep his nose clean and figured there was plenty of time for him to do something really rotten, like pressure a small country for political favors in exchange for releasing foreign aid.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've halfway convinced myself that was Pelosi's long game all along.  She knew he couldn't keep his nose clean and figured there was plenty of time for him to do something really rotten, like pressure a small country for political favors in exchange for releasing foreign aid.

Pelosi/Dems are most certainly playing some long game which is their biggest mistake in my opinion.  The cost of inaction in the face of what Trump has done/is doing will almost always work towards Trump’s advantage because he is openly trying to subvert their authority with every new crime that emerges. 

Pelosi not wielding the power given her more authoritatively and sooner in a time of crisis has already cast a dark cloud over the 2020 election.  Trump only tried to bribe Ukraine to interfere because he thought he could get away with it.  Pelosi’s early lack of resolve played a significant role it too. 

[Mdhorn 5987]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  I really would like to see at least the obstruction from the Mueller report in the articles.  That is black and white.  Let's throw in emoluments too.  Also black and white.

Of course, if we are playing to the lowest common denominator of the American public, which we are, even the Ukraine situation is probably going to be brain overload.

And if it forces their hand at a ruling, then it really kind of shapes how everything operates going forward which paints a clearer picture of each individual judge's intentions.  After allowing for dark money in elections and gerrymandering, it's kind of hard to say how this will go. 

[Mdhorn 5987]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi/Dems are most certainly playing some long game which is their biggest mistake in my opinion.  The cost of inaction in the face of what Trump has done/is doing will almost always work towards Trump’s advantage because he is openly trying to subvert their authority with every new crime that emerges. 

Pelosi not wielding the power given her more authoritatively and sooner in a time of crisis has already cast a dark cloud over the 2020 election.  Trump only tried to bribe Ukraine to interfere because he thought he could get away with it.  Pelosi’s early lack of resolve played a significant role it too. 

Yeah, there's not much of a long game to be played with an election looming in 2020. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Mdhorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19224]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

The fact that we're playing to the lowest common denominator means we should flood them with corruption stories, not just try to explain one to them. We're talking about the type of people who were convinced that Hillary was corrupt because Republicans literally just said the word "emails" over and over and over.  They'll never fully understand, no matter how clearly any particular instance of corruption is explained, why it's so bad, but some can be convinced that he's the most corrupt president ever if we just flood their brains with a hundred different examples even if they don't really fully grasp them.

Good luck getting Fox News to go with that line of thinking. And we all know that is most of the LCDs only “news” source. 

[David Dennison 18946]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pelosi/Dems are most certainly playing some long game which is their biggest mistake in my opinion.  The cost of inaction in the face of what Trump has done/is doing will almost always work towards Trump’s advantage because he is openly trying to subvert their authority with every new crime that emerges. 

Pelosi not wielding the power given her more authoritatively and sooner in a time of crisis has already cast a dark cloud over the 2020 election.  Trump only tried to bribe Ukraine to interfere because he thought he could get away with it.  Pelosi’s early lack of resolve played a significant role it too. 

Pelosi is trying to hold her majority. That's all she's doing.

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Good breakdown of what comes next.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/02/782667888/judiciary-takes-up-impeachment-as-house-intelligence-panel-prepares-to-release-r?utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics

 

  Hide contents

When would a Senate trial take place and how long would it take?

McConnell said he wants to work with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on a resolution establishing the rules for a trial. Those negotiations could happen in early January if the House transmits any articles of impeachment by the end of the year. McConnell has said he didn't know how long a trial would take, noting that the Senate spent two months dealing with the Clinton impeachment once the House transmitted articles of impeachment.

He also recently noted that a trial would tie up those Senate Democrats running for president. "I'm sure they are going to be excited to be here in their chairs — not being able to say anything during the pendency of this trial. So hopefully we'll work our way through it and finish it in not too lengthy of a process."

Republican Senators have already been meeting with White House officials to map out a trial and have discussed the possibility of one lasting just two weeks.

 

it's interesting to me to hear the full spectrum of scenarios that could play out in the senate trial.  i think it makes the most sense strategically and politically (for the gop) to have a swift trial resulting in an acquittal.  takes a couple weeks max, basically their way of saying "this is a joke, he's innocent, move on."  the longer the house goes, you would want the senate to be that much shorter, just to show their impotence.

that would be the smart move, in my opinion.  but some people don't like smart moves.

on a plane a few days ago, i was limited to some live tv, and stumbled upon a fox news segment, and of course, they squeezed in a little impeachment coverage.  i don't remember or care who was talking, but they basically described it like this (paraphrasing from memory):

"it doesn't matter what happens with the intel, or the judiciary, or any of the nonsense going on in the house.  nobody is taking it seriously.  this is all just pregame nonsense before the real show - the trial in the senate.  in a court case, nobody cares about any of the preliminary hearings, or motions, or any of that stuff.  people care about the trial.  this trial in the senate is going to be massive.  it will be 6 days a week.  from noon, or whenever it's allowed to start, until deep into the night, or whenever they finish.  and it will go on and on and on, until everyone knows the truth.  they're gonna get all the necessary witnesses in there.  hunter biden, joe biden, adam schiff, all of schiff's committee who spoke to the whistleblower, the whistleblower - everybody will finally have a chance to see for themselves what is really going on."

i mean, i guess i don't blame them.  ideally, you would want fact witnesses.  you know, people to refute all the facts that have been laid out.  but since those people don't exist (the facts aren't really on their side) then i guess it's about a stage-show.  since we know calling hunter biden won't shed any light on the held-up aid, would calling him serve any actual purpose?  could creating this theatrical garbage actually backfire on them?   

i'm curious to know what the plan is on their side.

[Biff Tannen 45738]

I think part of the reason Dennison grinds my gears so much, aside from his never-ending "it's all politics" response, is his damn avatar.  It makes me read all of his responses in dotard's voice.

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

I think part of the reason Dennison grinds my gears so much, aside from his never-ending "it's all politics" response, is his damn avatar.  It makes me read all of his responses in dotard's voice.

It is all politics. You want it to be more. It isn't and it never will be.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

it's the party hackery.  it's no better than what we get on the other side.

 

Point of Order

14 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Good luck getting Fox News to go with that line of thinking. And we all know that is most of the LCDs only “news” source. 

I walked into a McDonald's for the first time in many years and they were blasting Fox news at 11.   I thought that was about right.

[Biff Tannen 45738]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It is all politics. You want it to be more. It isn't and it never will be.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

In an alternative reality the founding fathers avoided the move to open rebellion against the British Empire because the politics were just too complicated. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

If more people had the facts straight, more would support impeachment. However there isn't a method to get past that hurdle. Over lunch, there was a Trump supporter calling into a SiriusXM show. He stated that Burisma and Hunter Biden both received part of the $400m of Ukrainian aid. The host told the caller that he had never even heard that claim. The caller also said there was zero difference if Trump withheld the aid for US policy reasons or 2020 campaign reasons.

It's practically impossible to get a fact into that person's head because they are in a space that anything against Trump is leftist propaganda.

Ultimately the Dems need to stick to one simple line, if only for Marketing purposes: "If you can't impeach/remove Trump for what he is doing then you can never remove any President."   

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The caller also said there was zero difference if Trump withheld the aid for US policy reasons or 2020 campaign reasons.

once trump is acquitted in the senate, this caller will be absolutely right.

[Brisketexan 105336]

once trump is acquitted in the senate, this caller will be absolutely right.

They’re already right, we’re just waiting for the senate to formalize it.

The Mob presidency is now a thing, and there’s no going back. All future presidents will have this precedent to vote for being immune to all consequences. It’s full immunity, and complete carte blanche - whatever the president does is by definition legal and proper.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

It's a horrible idea to impeach Trump this month. There is a zero chance that he's convicted so there's no rush. The House Dems need to force the WH personnel to show up to testify and produce documents. This is more important in the long run than Trump being impeached/convicted.  

The Dems should use the next 11 months to drag every Trump associate into a public hearing, including Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Trump Jr. etc. Make Trump Jr. plead the 5th.

Impeaching Trump this  month, and letting McConnell acquit Trump is exactly what Trump and McConnell want. Why give them what they want?

Edited December 2, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2682]

I don't get it either except for the speculation of getting it over with before primary campaigning ramps up and Dems gotta get out to campaign? Stupid though. No one will even have this shit on their minds come next November if it's over this year, and we need the court's rejecting absolute immunity to play out with the Mf'ers at the top being forced to testify.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

2 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I don't get it either except for the speculation of getting it over with before primary campaigning ramps up and Dems gotta get out to campaign? Stupid though. No one will even have this shit on their minds come next November if it's over this year, and we need the court's rejecting absolute immunity to play out with the Mf'ers at the top being forced to testify.

If the Dems got around to impeaching Trump in April, does it really matter if Warren or Sanders show up for the trial or not?  I'm assuming the other Senators will be out of the race by then. Let's say that McConnell requires 100% attendance in order to vote, do we even think it's coming down to 1 or 2 votes?

You also have to realize that some of partisan rhetoric will flip when/if the trial moves to the Senate. Right now the GOP are calling the hearings a sham but when they're in control of the trial, they will take it more seriously to show that a serious process is acquitting the President.  The Dems will call the Senate trial a sham. Warren and Sanders don't need to be there for that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Doing the right thing is so fucking hard! 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

The rush to impeach Trump today is the equivalent of Trump fans celebrating when they think lib'ruls are crying. Impeaching Trump today only helps Trump because it keeps many witnesses from testifying. Not to mention that the closer these hearings are to the election, the worse it will be for Trump.

It's almost like some people actually have some faith in the system and Trump will be convicted in the Senate.  The story ends when the House votes. Sure there will be constant TV coverage of the trial but nothing will come of it.

 

[Biff Tannen 45738]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It's almost like some people actually have some faith in the system

This was Mueller's problem also.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The president is openly assaulting the law, in broad daylight.  

But tell me again about faith in the system.

[David Dennison 18946]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Doing the right thing is so fucking hard! 

It's not about doing the right thing. You know this.

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The president is openly assaulting the law, in broad daylight.  

But tell me again about faith in the system.

And he will get away with it as long as his party protects him.

[Brisketexan 105336]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

And he will get away with it as long as his party protects him.

This.  Here's the simple truth about the fatal flaw in our system of government:

If a criminal enterprise seizes control of the right offices (POTUS, Senate, SCOTUS), there's literally nothing we can do to stop them (I mean, short of flat-out armed insurrection, and even then....they've got the force of the state behind them).  That's the one thing that can end a Republic.  And it's happened.

[Biff Tannen 45738]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not about doing the right thing. You know this.

Wait wait wait, I know this one.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

For people that want Trump to be innocent of the Ukraine story, there isn't a lot of evidence that Trump is guilty. Yes there are some partially smoking guns but even Sondland can't speak to the entire story. He had nothing to do with the aid being withheld. 

Question about the current court cases to compel the witnesses to speak: does the current case also address executive privilege or only absolute immunity?

[deech 2291]

The problem is that the Dems have not figured out their end game especially in lieu of the general sentiment in the Senate and the likelihood there will never be a full legit trial.

[Brisketexan 105336]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

For people that want Trump to be innocent of the Ukraine story, there isn't a lot of evidence that Trump is guilty. Yes there are some partially smoking guns but even Sondland can't speak to the entire story. He had nothing to do with the aid being withheld. 

Question about the current court cases to compel the witnesses to speak: does the current case also address executive privilege or only absolute immunity?

Hint: the aid being withheld is evidence of ANOTHER crime....that evidence being less-than-perfect does nothing with respect to the first crime.  Soliciting foreign assistance with a campaign.

Trump asked, through his DIRECT contacts, that Ukraine announce an investigation of Biden.  That verb is important.  Announce.  Not "conduct."  The only purpose for such a request is to harm a political opponent.  That is, it RULES OUT the only alternative motive (not that anyone sane believes it for a second anyway) -- "rooting out corruption."

That request for a foreign government to take an action that could only be intended to harm a political opponent is a violation of US law.  It's also a particularly chilling one when the POTUS uses the inherent and incredible power of the office to back up that request.  Standing alone, it's the most shameful, criminal act of a US president in modern history.  It is not only impeachable, it is a no-brainer as to requiring that the criminal committing such act be removed from office.

[Tuco 5077]

24 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The rush to impeach Trump today is the equivalent of Trump fans celebrating when they think lib'ruls are crying. Impeaching Trump today only helps Trump because it keeps many witnesses from testifying. Not to mention that the closer these hearings are to the election, the worse it will be for Trump.

It's almost like some people actually have some faith in the system and Trump will be convicted in the Senate.  The story ends when the House votes. Sure there will be constant TV coverage of the trial but nothing will come of it.

 

 I don't have a strong opinion, one way or the other.  But...

In general, I think Democrats currently have the momentum.  It's not by a ton.  I'm not confident that Trump will lose in 2020, or that 2020 will be bad in general for Republicans.  But, all indications - polling, 2018 midterms, recent state races in red states - are that Dems are currently winning in the court of public opinion, absent anything to do with the impeachment.  When you are winning, you are less likely to take chances.  Pelosi wants to avoid new variables. When the Ukraine scandal flared up, it was a new variable, and I believe she had to deal with it regardless.  She could have lost more votes by ignoring it.  But she's not going to press it.  I think she wants to it to be narrow in scope, with as few surprises as possible, and to be completed quickly.  Put it in the Republican doorstep and point at them when they kill it.  Her base is satisfied, Trump's corruption is partially exposed, the Republican complicity is partially exposed, and we can go back to watching Trump say stupid shit.  

If, in the interest of taking the impeachment as far as it can go, it drags on, the public could turn on it.  The more non-friendly witnesses you call, the more likely one of them will say something that pokes a hole in the current narrative, even if they are perjuring themselves.  The longer it drags on, the better chance one of the Democrats will say or do something that could discredit the impeachment.  

And, many of the other elements could come out without the Democrats driving it.  The Giuliani / Ukrainian henchmen / campaign financing will take its course, regardless if the Dems vote tomorrow on impeachment.  Bolton may release information on the Ukrainian scandal in a book.  Get the Republicans on the record.  And there is a decent chance those votes and justifications will age poorly.  

My preference is still to hold on and try to get Mulvaney, Perry, and Pompeo to testify, assuming it could be done in the next two months.  I would even consider putting the hearings on hold temporarily to let the courts finish.  But I understand the other play.  I can't say I trust the Democratic Party to always play smart politics, but I'll admit folks like Pelosi know this shit a lot better than I do. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, deech said:

The problem is that the Dems have not figured out their end game especially in lieu of the general sentiment in the Senate and the likelihood there will never be a full legit trial.

They’re cowards because they can’t deal with uncertainty.  Party over country works both ways. 

[deech 2291]

Republicans release their report early.  Double down on everything.  It's like what the witnesses said the last two weeks were irrelevant to their final conclusions.  

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

People need to understand that Trump violated more than one Federal law when he held back aid.  It wasn't just about election law -- he does not possess the authority to withhold aid in this situation.  This.  Is.  Another.  Impeachable.  Offense.

 

Trump VS the law

 

 

 

 

 

3

Spoiler

Yes, presidents can hold up military aid. But not like Trump did with Ukraine.

They have broad authority to condition the release of assistance packages, but they still have to follow the law.

Add to list

A rough transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is displayed during impeachment hearings before the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 19. (Drew Angerer/AFP/Getty Images)

By J. Brian Atwood 

J. Brian Atwood was the administrator of USAID during the Clinton administration, assistant secretary of state for congressional relations during the Carter administration and a former Foreign Service officer. He is currently a senior fellow for international affairs at Brown University’s Watson Institute.

November 25, 2019 at 5:00 a.m. CST

In February, Congress authorized and appropriated $391 million in aid to Ukraine — including funds designated for lethal security use — in the fiscal 2019 budget. But in a now widely discussed move, the Trump administration delayed the release of these urgently needed funds until Sept. 11. President Trump says there was “no quid pro quo” involved and therefore he did nothing wrong. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) says the question is whether Trump “abused his power” by attempting to leverage a foreign nation for political advantage.

What has been obscured in the back and forth is that presidents do, in fact, have broad authority to condition aid to a foreign nation, even to delay it if there are concerns that it will not be used for its intended purposes. That is Trump’s power as president. But he doesn’t appear to have exercised it lawfully in this case.

Under Section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act, a president “is authorized to furnish military assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, to any friendly country or international organization, the assisting of which the President finds will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace.” Section 116 of the act states that the president has authority to withhold military or economic assistance “to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

AD

 

Two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act are relevant here.

First, the Freedom Support Act was added to the Foreign Assistance Act when the Soviet Union broke apart. It authorized aid to “take into account” the progress toward a “democratic system based on principles of the rule of law, individual freedoms, and representative government.”

Second, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 was enacted with broad bipartisan support and designed to set U.S. policy “to further assist the Government of Ukraine in restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity to deter the Government of the Russian Federation from further destabilizing and invading Ukraine.”

 

We aid Ukraine to help it fight Russia. By holding back support, Trump helped Putin.

This statutorily endorsed policy and the effort to help end corruption in Ukraine were objectives of both the Obama and Trump administrations. As Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, emphasized in her congressional testimony, “It was and remains a top U.S. priority to help Ukraine fight corruption.”

AD

Foreign assistance programs are often held back and conditioned to ensure that systems are in place to prevent corruption. If physical items are to be purchased, transparent procurement processes are put in place. Local sub-grantees are investigated to ensure they will carry out their responsibilities with integrity.

Occasionally, policy issues that had not been anticipated might arise, delaying the release of aid — or the means through which it is distributed. Similarly, a change of government could be a cause to reevaluate and reconsider the terrain.

 

Concerns about corruption aren’t the only reason aid might be held up: In 1996, I attended a principals meeting to consider the sale of F-15s to Chile’s military. During the meeting, I argued that the sale could precipitate an arms race among poor countries that could ill-afford additional defense spending. Despite the position of the Defense, State and Commerce departments, the sale was held back for about four months. It proceeded only after we were able to account for the concerns that had come up during that meeting.

AD

There is, as that example shows, no question that aid might be delayed to consider new realities. A hold would be justified if, for example, evidence came to light that military equipment purchased by Ukraine with U.S. funds might be siphoned onto the black market or used for nefarious purposes.

Yes, Trump release the aid to Ukraine. But the damage was already done.

But the issue here is whether the situation in Ukraine in the spring and summer of 2019 warranted a delay. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected with a large mandate on an anti-corruption platform in April. His party won a strong majority in parliament on July 21. In the view of those responsible for carrying out U.S. policy, these events created a very positive inflection point. According to the congressional testimony presented last week, each time the White House asked for a review of the aid package, the national security agencies came back quickly to recertify it and urge that it move ahead expeditiously.

 

Under ordinary circumstances, deciding to withhold urgently needed assistance to an important ally would engage the national security establishment at the highest level. By way of example, I was deeply involved in the handling of the Kosovo crisis during the Clinton administration. President Bill Clinton and his national security team met often, and decisions related to diplomatic initiatives, military targeting and the provision of humanitarian assistance were informed by interagency discussion. One result of these discussions was a decision to have the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) use aircraft to drop food aid in forested areas where civilians were hiding from Serb insurgents and the U.S. bombing campaign.

AD

Although the United States is not engaged in a shooting war in Ukraine, Ukraine itself is, so providing aid was an urgent matter.

According to her testimony, Pentagon official Laura Cooper suggested in a July 31 meeting that if the administration was going to hold up aid, it was obliged to either rescind the appropriation or ask the Defense Department to reprogram the resources. This would have been in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prevents the president from unilaterally substituting his own funding decisions for those of Congress.

 

The U.S. tried to fix Ukraine's government. We exported our corruption instead.

In open testimony, National Security Council aide Tim Morrison revealed yet another meeting to discuss the package, on Sept. 7. At this point, the concern over possibly losing the funds was acute. Given the need to give 15 days’ notice to Congress, only a week remained before some action was needed. If nothing was done, the money would be lost at the end of September, the close of the fiscal year.

AD

As the timeline of events has emerged, it has become clear — as William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and Yovanovitch’s successor, indicated in his congressional testimony — that an “irregular” Ukraine policy was being pursued by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, outside official channels. The apparent goal of that back channel was to indicate, as the White House’s partial transcript of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky reflected and as Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, said in his testimony last week, that the aid would not be released until Zelensky made a public statement announcing investigations into the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings and the widely debunked rumor that Ukraine and not Russia had intervened in the 2016 U.S. election. (Former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter served on the board of Burisma.)

If the president delayed aid to extract a favor from Ukraine’s government, that not only would have undermined our policy, but it also would have fallen outside of his legal authority as chief executive and violated federal election laws. He could have delayed the aid to further policy objectives. He could have, pursuant to the Impoundment Act, asked for the funds to be redirected. He could not, however, legally, direct congressionally appropriated funds to achieve personal political ends.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

We all have the attention spans of goldfish. Impeach and hold a trial by end of January, and it's completely forgotten by Nov 2020. Don't stop the investigation and hearings until everyone, outside of Trump and Pence, have sat in front of Congress. Trump and Pence probably have even standing in the Constitution to ignore Congress but that right isn't conveyed to their staff.

The one risk of waiting is if the Court agrees with Trump which some would take as their implicit backing of Trump. However that would seem to completely eliminate the constitutional right of the House to impeach the President.  It's a big stretch to say that the executive branch can ignore the right of the House that is spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

EDIT: I would continue the hearings up until the election. Who cares if it ultimately is pointless. It will serve as a daily anti-Trump election ad. We should be seeing hearings where Trump stole $2m from the veteran charities. Who cares if he pleaded guilty the other week. That pleading has nothing to do with Congress. Let's have a few days of hearings where the American public sees the vets testify how that money would have helped them over the last 3 years.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Biff Tannen 45738]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

We all have the attention spans of goldfish. Impeach and hold a trial by end of January, and it's completely forgotten by Nov 2020. Don't stop the investigation and hearings until everyone, outside of Trump and Pence, have sat in front of Congress. Trump and Pence probably have even standing in the Constitution to ignore Congress but that right isn't conveyed to their staff.

The one risk of waiting is if the Court agrees with Trump which some would take as their implicit backing of Trump. However that would seem to completely eliminate the constitutional right of the House to impeach the President.  It's a big stretch to say that the executive branch can ignore the right of the House that is spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

This is pretty much where I'm at.  Unfortunately I have exactly zero influence on how the Dems will ultimately act, so I guess I'm just going to sit back and watch.

[deech 2291]

I don't get the attention span argument.  We are impeaching a President.  It should be done as cleanly as possible.  I give zero shits for public perception or polling or the upcoming election IMHO.  My only concern for timing related to the election is that this act related to receiving a favor meant to damage one of his political opponents in the upcoming election.  As a result, the only concern I have is his propensity to keep doing it again and again over and over if it's not unchecked now.

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

For people that want Trump to be innocent of the Ukraine story, there isn't a lot of evidence that Trump is guilty.

ignoring the evidence isn't the same as there not being any.

not only is there about as much evidence supporting exactly what happened as possible (considering who and who hasn't testified), but there is exactly zero evidence refuting these facts.  they got the aid anyway?  sure.  ukraine said they didn't feel actual pressure?  ok.  this isn't great but it isn't impeachable?  hey, why not.

people who want trump to be innocent can say plenty of things (this happens all the time, get over it), but nothing refutes the facts.  and it won't matter.  this isn't about innocent or guilty.  lindsey graham out front should've toldya.

[deech 2291]

I'm sorry, but as a lawyer I would love to try a case (every lawyer would) where the evidence of quid pro quo included:

1.  I have the favor asked for by the executive of an organization in a written summary of the conversation that is detailed, accurate, and signed-off on by multiple people.

and

2.  The President and the person responsible with ordering OMB to withhold the aid (his Chief of Staff) both stating on national television that yes they asked for the "investigation" and/or yes on quid pro quo.

and

3.  The President admitting to his point person in Europe that the only thing that matters is the announcement of an investigation not an actual investigation (Pretext).

 

I mean those are undisputed facts.

 

We can say that's not an impeachable offense, but we can't say no quid pro quo existed or that a crime wasn't committed.  

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by deech

[Brisketexan 105336]

I'm sorry, but as a lawyer I would love to try a case (every lawyer would) where the evidence of quid pro quo included:
1.  I have the favor asked for by the executive of an organization in a written summary of the conversation that is detailed, accurate, and signed-off on by multiple people.
and
2.  The President and the person responsible with ordering OMB to withhold the aid (his Chief of Staff) both stating on national television that yes they asked for the "investigation" and/or yes on quid pro quo.
and
3.  The President admitting to his point person in Europe that the only thing that matters is the announcement of an investigation not an actual investigation (Pretext).
 
I mean those are undisputed facts.
 
We can say that's not an impeachable offense, but we can't say no quid pro quo existed or that a crime wasn't committed.  
 
 
 

99% of the people who’ve gone to prison for bribery were convicted on LESS compelling evidence.

And every “tough on crime” Republican would support those convictions.*

*Except, of course, in those cases where the convict is a republican, in which case it is always a partisan witch hunt with a corrupt prosecutor operating out of a pizza place where they molest kids with Hillary.

[David Dennison 18946]

5 hours ago, deech said:

The problem is that the Dems have not figured out their end game especially in lieu of the general sentiment in the Senate and the likelihood there will never be a full legit trial.

They know their end game. They are going to impeach him before the end of the year. What happens after that is up to Republicans in the Senate.

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They know their end game. They are going to impeach him before the end of the year. What happens after that is up to Republicans in the Senate.

And we all know how that ends. 

[David Dennison 18946]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And we all know how that ends. 

Yep.

The campaign is going to be lots of fun.

[Biff Tannen 45738]

Speaking of the campaign, does anyone think he’s actually going to debate?  I don’t. He’ll come up with excuses or just flat refuse. 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Speaking of the campaign, does anyone think he’s actually going to debate?  I don’t. He’ll come up with excuses or just flat refuse. 

While debates are the least of my concerns, Trump and the Trumpkins swear he mopped the floor with Hillary 3X.  Of course she handed him his own fat ass, but that doesn't matter, he won't be able to resist.  He thinks he's a master in that arena.  The fact that it won't sway any opinions is irrelevant.