House Impeachment Inquiry

[TragicMonkey]

I can't remember where I was reading it, but it was mentioned that Marie getting canned is going to ripple through foreign relations for a long time. If foreign countries think the POTUS can be so easily manipulated then it will give them hesitation to sign things they don't like. If they think they can just get the Ambassador fired and put someone more friendly to them in their place, then why wouldn't they do that?

Why bother with ambassadors at all? All a country needs to do is have its leader Tweet praise of Trump and he'll do whatever they want.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I can't remember where I was reading it, but it was mentioned that Marie getting canned is going to ripple through foreign relations for a long time. If foreign countries think the POTUS can be so easily manipulated then it will give them hesitation to sign things they don't like. If they think they can just get the Ambassador fired and put someone more friendly to them in their place, then why wouldn't they do that?

That concern seems far more legitimate than any criticism Rudy or Trump have brought forward about her performance.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why bother with ambassadors at all? All a country needs to do is have its leader Tweet praise of Trump and he'll do whatever they want.

But that is much harder for low level con-men in a country the President couldn't find on a map.

 

[kellyb]

That concern seems far more legitimate than any criticism Rudy or Trump have brought forward about her performance.

I honestly have no idea how you'd evaluate a claim like the one Trump made about her.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The fact that an individual served in a particular role for multiple decades (and under presidents from both parties) is significant because it shows that the individual is likely both competent at their job, and is capable of fulfilling their role in a non-biased manner. (It also suggests that the individual may have a certain amount of dedication and willingness to sacrifice in order to fulfill their role.)

While the president may have the authority to fire or replace such an individual, doing so should raise questions about why such firing is warranted.

Thus, when Stubby McBonespurs both fired her and attacked her reputation on Twitter, it could be seen as intimidation, since his attacks could (in theory) affect her reputation, and/or impact her ability to find employment in the future.

And let's not forget attacks on social media which for women can mean rape threats and death threats, harassment, stalking, etc.

Trump turns on you with falsehoods like that and his minions follow.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Giuliani Tweeted

Rudy Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
3 witnesses so far and no evidence has been presented of any offense.
The first 2 (permanent) diplomats had no direct knowledge, just overhearing things.
The 3rd one had no knowledge, not even hearsay!
This is a travesty.

Says another person with direct knowledge and then some who refuses to testify.

I'd love to see him lose his law license over this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Let that sink in. A couple of corrupt thugs hired Rudy and were successful in getting the President to fire the US Ambassador to their country. ....

Do you think that means Rudy was supposed to register as acting for a foreign government? What were the three of them doing, I have forgotten.

Lawfare: Paul Manafort Guilty Plea Highlights Increased Enforcement of Foreign Agents Registration Act

In Count One of the government’s superseding criminal information, Manafort pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States in connection with his failure to register under FARA as an agent of the government of Ukraine; that country’s Party of Regions; former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych; and the Opposition Bloc, a successor to Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. In the same count, Manafort also pleaded guilty to conspiracy in connection with FARA-related false statements and misrepresentations to the Department of Justice in violation of both FARA and the general false-statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Some brief history for context: FARA is a somewhat arcane law that was enacted in 1938 in response to pro-Nazi propaganda activities in the United States. Historically not a major feature of the Justice Department’s national security enforcement program, FARA has come to play an increasingly prominent role in the government’s response to foreign influence operations in the United States.

FARA requires persons in the United States who engage in specified activities as “agents” of “foreign principals” to register with the Department of Justice and to file periodic disclosure reports. Such activities include “political activities,” which is broadly defined to cover “any activity the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the [American] public.” The primary purpose of FARA, as the Justice Department recently told Congress, “is to ensure that the American public and our lawmakers know the source of information that is provided at the behest of a foreign principal, where that information may be intended to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I honestly have no idea how you'd evaluate a claim like the one Trump made about her.

Was she bad news? Did she have didily-squat to do with Somalia's mess?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I honestly have no idea how you'd evaluate a claim like the one Trump made about her.

Honestly, I don't know either.

He hasn't said anything other than trouble followed her. Which is pretty easy to debunk: she was sent to troubled places.

But Ziggurat seems to think there may have been legitimate reasons to fire her. If there are, I haven't seen them yet.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Do you think that means Rudy was supposed to register as acting for a foreign government? What were the three of them doing, I have forgotten.

Lawfare: Paul Manafort Guilty Plea Highlights Increased Enforcement of Foreign Agents Registration Act

Seems like he was acting for corrupt foreign businessmen. I don't know how that would be covered. Oh, and one corrupt "local businessman", although there is some question about that last word being properly applied in this case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have now lost considerable respect for Jonathan Turley's legal opinions. He was on CSPAN discussing his tunnel vision about the impeachment case. And with it, despite the Hill dumping Solomon, they have really shifted to the alt-right.

The Hill: Are Democrats building a collapsible impeachment? Opinion by J Turley

The fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural in nature. If they want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.

In the interview on CSPAN he repeated the claim there is no evidence or only weak evidence. There's already overwhelming evidence and there's more to come. Yet Turley talked as if the memorandum on the call was all the evidence there was that Trump withheld military assistance and the missile purchase in exchange for Zelensky publicly announcing an investigation into the Bidens and 2016 election interference (that didn't happen).

 

[kellyb]

Honestly, I don't know either.

He hasn't said anything other than trouble followed her. Which is pretty easy to debunk: she was sent to troubled places.

But Ziggurat seems to think there may have been legitimate reasons to fire her. If there are, I haven't seen them yet.

I think we should at least pretend we find his presidency legitimate while we wait for him to get kicked out, either by senate conviction, or democratically, I guess.

The onus is on us to prove he was acting outside the law if we're going to go there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems like he was acting for corrupt foreign businessmen. I don't know how that would be covered. Oh, and one corrupt "local businessman", although there is some question about that last word being properly applied in this case.

Thanks. Clearly lawyers often represent corrupt businessmen.

 

[Craig4]

I have to admit, the attack on Biden by North Korea did seem to be out of nowhere. I know Biden has criticized Trump's meetings with North Korea, but then so have other democratic candidates.

Biden hadn't brought up North Korea recently as far as I know. On the other hand the US just postponed a major exercise with South Korea. You have to ask if there was a quid pro quo there too. We know he already did it once. I suppose Lunchbox could have just figured out attacks on Trump's rivals are how he should respond when Trump rolls over and shows his belly.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think we should at least pretend we find his presidency legitimate while we wait for him to get kicked out, either by senate conviction, or democratically, I guess.

The onus is on us to prove he was acting outside the law if we're going to go there.

I have no idea what that means with respect to the fact that he fired an Ambassador because a couple of corrupt businessmen convinced his personal attorney it would be a good idea.

She has an impeccable record and there is so far only one reason in the record for her being fired: she was too tough on corruption and it was making life tough for Rudy's clients.

If Trump would like to propose another reason, then we could look at it, but he has not. Until he does I see no reason to assume her firing was legitimate. And plenty of reason to see it as illegitimate.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thanks. Clearly lawyers often represent corrupt businessmen.

If they pay their bills. Why anyone would represent Trump is beyond me.

 

[autumn1971]

If it's to instigate mass harassment, it's not just criticism. Criticism alone, the single tweet, is not what's problematic, really.

I keep going back and forth on this, but I think there's a (moral) there, there.

It is intended to instigate violent terrorism.

The POSOTUS is no better than an ISIS imam and should be treated as such.

I’m sure in his case the “crying and whining” would be both documented and substantial

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If they pay their bills. Why anyone would represent Trump is beyond me.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I have now lost considerable respect for Jonathan Turley's legal opinions. He was on CSPAN discussing his tunnel vision about the impeachment case.

I would be shocked and disappointed if the Democrats don’t write up multiple Articles of Impeachment.

Of the 10 or so instances in Part II of the Mueller Report, I’d expect to see at least several charged. Remember, each of those gave evidence for meeting all three criteria for Obstruction of Justice. Firing Comey and then going on TV and saying it was about ”The Russia Thing”, and then telling the Russian Ambassador that now “the pressure was off” is in my mind the one where intent is easiest to prove.

Trump lying to Mueller in his written responses is another, as is asking China to investigate the Bidens. And don’t forget ordering subordinates to ignore lawful subpoenas and/or to prepare false statements.

If I had to wager, they’re just getting started and I expect to see at least a dozen Articles of Impeachment. Even if the Senate fails to convict, it is the House’s responsibility to air these out, if only for history’s sake.

 

[acbytesla]

I think we should at least pretend we find his presidency legitimate while we wait for him to get kicked out, either by senate conviction, or democratically, I guess.

The onus is on us to prove he was acting outside the law if we're going to go there.

While I think the reason Trump fire Yovanovitch was illegal, actually firing her was not.