House Impeachment Inquiry

[phiwum]

It's in this thread.




EDIT: Okay, that's Crowdstrike, not the Bidens specifically.

I listened to the first couple of minutes. I heard him mention the Crowdstrike nonsense and I heard him mention withholding aid because Ukraine is corrupt. I didn't hear him say he was withholding aid until investigations into Crowdstrike were announced.

I don't see that as an admission of what's alleged, even ignoring the fact that this is about Crowdstrike and not Biden.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It should be a priority, though. Firstly, because it's not just about testimony, but withheld documents. Secondly because if they want to lie and/or plead the 5th, then let them do that and get them on record as doing so (and allow the twittersphere to publicise all those Trump quotes about only guilty people pleading the 5th). And, thirdly and most importantly, if you don't enforce subpoenas then you're sending the message that subpoenas are meaningless and that anybody and everybody is free to ignore them from now on, as well as the message that Democrats are only bluffing in everything they do.

That's bad for the Democrats, good for the criminals, bad for the US right now, and bad for the US in the future.

It's also worth noting that pleading the 5th is not guaranteed. Sondland would probably have done himself some favours had he pleaded the 5th, but instead he sang like a canary (eventually). I think that the majority of Trump cronies will do whatever they think is most likely to best serve their own self-interests.

I should have said not an immediate priority.

They are currently waiting a decision on the McGhan subpoena. Politico: That ruling comes today.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yes, and therefore the question arises. Is there enough evidence for a case? Could the House make a complete and evidenced argument for removal at this point?

If we take for granted that the Senate will not vote to remove, regardless of how good the House's case is, does that change whether a good case can now be made?

Hmmm? No such question arises about several possible Articles of Impeachment -- there's plenty of evidence -- but I suspect there is still internal debate about how many to bring to the House floor. With Senate Republicans vowing to dismiss any charges, I'd say throw the book at him to make them pay the maximum political price for doing so. In a rare flash of insight a couple weeks ago, Trump tweeted that Pelosi is trying to destroy both him and the Republican Party -- or at least the Republican stranglehold on the Senate.

 

[Delvo]

1/ Impeachment is going forward to establish a historical record of what happened, and to tell future presidents "You can't do this without consequences." Even if Trump doesn't get removed, he will have been impeached and tried, a fate most normal Presidents would try hard to avoid.

2/ A trial in the Senate will require every Senator to cast a vote. For the ones who are up for re-election in purple states in 2020, a vote for Trump will work against them and might cost them their job.

There is also the fact that a bunch of Republican politicians actually hate him and would welcome a way to get rid of him for themselves.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Hmmm? No such question arises about several possible Articles of Impeachment -- there's plenty of evidence -- but I suspect there is still internal debate about how many to bring to the House floor. With Senate Republicans vowing to dismiss any charges, I'd say throw the book at him to make them pay the maximum political price for doing so. In a rare flash of insight a couple weeks ago, Trump tweeted that Pelosi is trying to destroy both him and the Republican Party -- or at least the Republican stranglehold on the Senate.

What if something really Embarrassing were to come out?

 

[Stacyhs]

I listened to the first couple of minutes. I heard him mention the Crowdstrike nonsense and I heard him mention withholding aid because Ukraine is corrupt. I didn't hear him say he was withholding aid until investigations into Crowdstrike were announced.

I don't see that as an admission of what's alleged, even ignoring the fact that this is about Crowdstrike and not Biden.

But Ukraine had already been cleared in May after the Pentagon had done a second corruption check.

 

[Trebuchet]

There is also the fact that a bunch of Republican politicians actually hate him and would welcome a way to get rid of him for themselves.

Unfortunately it's not a secret vote. Voting to remove him would ensure they'd get primaried right out of office.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But Ukraine had already been cleared in May after the Pentagon had done a second corruption check.

But Trump knows more than anyone at the pentagon, CIA, NSA and so on about corruption. He has always been for it like how he tried to get the laws against bribing foreign officials removed.

 

[alfaniner]

There is also the fact that a bunch of Republican politicians actually hate him and would welcome a way to get rid of him for themselves.

I would love to see some evidence of that. At least I'd be reassured that some people on that side have some sense.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I would love to see some evidence of that. At least I'd be reassured that some people on that side have some sense.

Trump's power is News and Sean Hannity, that is also his greatest weakness.

 

[Segnosaur]

There is also the fact that a bunch of Republican politicians actually hate him and would welcome a way to get rid of him for themselves.

I would love to see some evidence of that. At least I'd be reassured that some people on that side have some sense.

I thought some of these things had been discussed already.

Obviously none have gone on the record. Lots of second-hand statements and innuendo. Such as Jeff Flake saying "at least" 35 republican senators would vote to remove Trump if the vote were private.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-gop-senators-would-impeach-trump/3792866002/

Now I guess the question is... do they want to remove Trump because they actually have an ethical objection to the way Trump conducts himself, or do they actually like him but realize he may be a detriment to them maintaining power.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I watched the oral arguments just now in the Federal court hearing on revealing the Mueller Grand Jury testimony because the House Judiciary Committee believes there is evidence of Trump's perjury in it.

While this is not yet the SCOTUS hearing, the justices questions were polite to the House attorneys and rude to the Justice Department (Trump's) ones. Not always significant.

 

[Minoosh]

Now I guess the question is... do they want to remove Trump because they actually have an ethical objection to the way Trump conducts himself, or do they actually like him but realize he may be a detriment to them maintaining power.

I don't think they appreciate him stepping on their foreign-policy toes. Whether he affects their power depends on their home-state's politics, and it's too early to speculate much on that. Though we are in the last year of a 4-year cycle, so things might start becoming clearer.

Ethics barely enters into the picture at all. For either party, IMO. The fine points there are dwarfed by practical considerations.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Federal judge rules former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify, rejecting all 3 of DOJ’s arguments and finding that

the claim that a President’s senior-level aides have absolute testimonial immunity is meritless.

https://politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

Judge Jackson

“the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires. Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.”

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Federal judge rules former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify, rejecting all 3 of DOJ’s arguments and finding that
https://politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

Judge Jackson

Good. Now we just need the SCOTUS to expedite the case, refuse to hear it, or prove the majority aren't Trump sycophants.

Expect Barr to stall as long as he can before appealing, though I'm not sure what stalling benefits them.


Edited to add, soon we can expect the rest of those subpoenas to be re-submitted.

 

[Stacyhs]

Federal judge rules former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify, rejecting all 3 of DOJ’s arguments and finding that
https://politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

Judge Jackson

As expected, the DOJ is appealing Judge Jackson's ruling. So predictable.

 

[Trebuchet]

Good. Now we just need the SCOTUS to expedite the case, refuse to hear it, or prove the majority aren't Trump sycophants.

Expect Barr to stall as long as he can before appealing, though I'm not sure what stalling benefits them.


Edited to add, soon we can expect the rest of those subpoenas to be re-submitted.

Almost at the same time, SCROTUS put a hold on releasing Trump's taxes. They'll probably overturn McGahn's testimony by this time tomorrow.

 

[a_unique_person]

Federal judge rules former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify, rejecting all 3 of DOJ’s arguments and finding that
https://politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

Judge Jackson

So that's what's happening behind the scenes. I guess after they crack this nut more people will be appearing before the inquiry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Almost at the same time, SCROTUS put a hold on releasing Trump's taxes. They'll probably overturn McGahn's testimony by this time tomorrow.

You don't know that and it's pretty common to stay a ruling like this until the appeal is heard.

 

[a_unique_person]

You don't know that and it's pretty common to stay a ruling like this until the appeal is heard.

What's the point of stacking courts of they won't rule in your favour?