• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure he'd done anything illegal at that point.
To clarify: I’m not sure sitting on the funding was illegal in itself. I’m not talking about anything he said to Zelensky. It obviously raises questions about why he withheld it, but unless Trump et al. honor subpoenas, no one is going to be in a position to ask. They don’t have to lie. They just have to dodge the question.
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...hite-house-request/ar-BBXhcxp?ocid=spartanntp

This is an interesting article. I think there's a certain amount of signaling happening from Graham. I'm not optimistic but I remain open to the possibility that Graham is playing The Fool to Trump's King Lear.

It's a mystery to me why Congress feels the need to formally recognize a genocide. I can't figure out who the audience is supposed to be. I'm sure they have Armenian constituents who would welcome that gesture, but that's all it is.

And Turkey's supposed to give up its Russian weapons? Why on earth should it? I can't see Trump being on board for that either.

I watch Graham for signals too, being not quite able to believe his crush on Trump. And he says he wouldn't block it again but someone else stepped up.
 
Last sentence in the MSN link:

"Despite the delay in the Senate, the resolution passed in the House last month."

I understand writers wanting a transition, but it's silly to use the word "despite." Just delete the first six words of that sentence and add that the House passed it 405-11, which is the most interesting part of the story IMO. How the heck does the House come to that level of agreement? Did the House GOP caucus not get the memo?

Graham makes a point of saying he wouldn't block it again. I wonder what's really going on there.
 
Zelensky had a scheduled interview with CNN. It was planned that he make the announcement of the Burisma Biden investigation in that interview. But the whole thing had blown up before the interview and Trump released the aid.
I assume zelensky could start an enquiry into Biden at any time but has chosen not to.
 
To clarify: I’m not sure sitting on the funding was illegal in itself. I’m not talking about anything he said to Zelensky. It obviously raises questions about why he withheld it, but unless Trump et al. honor subpoenas, no one is going to be in a position to ask. They don’t have to lie. They just have to dodge the question.

We know the whole point of withholding the payment was for personal illicit gain. Sondland said everyone was in the loop and he named them all.

There are a number of ways they can try to lie their way out of it, including pleading the 5th*.


*Probably why enforcing subpoenas wasn't a high priority for Schiff.
 
"But, but, but US intelligence agencies say Ukraine wasn't involved..." I love how all you "skeptics" thoughtlessly repeat Deep State propaganda. Real Americans repeat Russian propaganda.
 
Last edited:
We know the whole point of withholding the payment was for personal illicit gain. Sondland said everyone was in the loop and he named them all.

There are a number of ways they can try to lie their way out of it, including pleading the 5th*.


*Probably why enforcing subpoenas wasn't a high priority for Schiff.

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.
 
Walter Shaub, former Director of the Office of Government Ethics, tweeted:

Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify:

a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections;
b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection;
c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all;
d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president;
e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress;
f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president;
g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president;
h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts;
i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;
j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know;
k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence;
l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information;
m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd;
n. Disseminating Russian disinformation;
o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business;
p. Violating human rights and international law at our border;
q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities;
r. Lying incessantly to the American people;
s. Relentlessly attacking the free press;
t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses;
u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution;
w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies;
x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base;
y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election;
z. Engaging in a documented campaign of obstruction of a Special Counsel's investigation.
aa. Lying about a hush money payoff and omitting his debt to his attorney for that payoff from his financial disclosure report (which is a crime if done knowingly and wilfully);
bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations;
cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence;
dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations;
ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight;
ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment);
gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business;
hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties;
ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses;
jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals;
kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president;
ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion;
mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal;
nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and
oo. etc.


At this point, I would remind these unpatriotic Senators of the line "you have a republic if you can keep it," but a variation on this line may soon be more apt when Trump redoubles his attack on our election: You have a republic, if you can call this a republic.


Given Trump's transactional personality and love of reciprocity (a.k.a. quid pro quo), I'd bet that a lot of the items on that list are also on Trump's "promises made, promises kept" list -- the question being, to whom they were made.
 
"I don't care how corrupt he is, or that he wants to be a dictator, just so long as I get my tax cuts, ban abortion, and see the inferior races put back in their place".
Bottom line for the GOP nowdays.

It's not even that. That, as vile as it would be, would at least be an actual position with actual goals.

Now it's more like "Well they didn't let me ban abortions or put the inferior races in their place so I'm just going to pull the whole system down around our heads out of spite."
 
"But, but, but US intelligence agencies say Ukraine wasn't involved..." I love how all you "skeptics" thoughtlessly repeat Deep State propaganda. Real Americans repeat Russian propaganda.

I mean on one hand we have a Democratic House that is saying the President withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating the Bidens and on the other hand we have a Republican President saying that the President withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating the Bidens. I don't know which side to believe.

We obviously need more investigation.
 
I assume zelensky could start an enquiry into Biden at any time but has chosen not to.
Consider it from Zelensky's point of view : if he starts an inquiry and Biden gets elected, Ukraine is screwed. Everybody knows now that the US is a fickle friend and that the US President can do whatever he likes in the field of foreign affairs, without Congressional oversight. Trump and the Republican Party have firmly established that. If he doesn't start an enquiry and Trump wins, Trump will forget the whole thing because Trump winning the election is what it's all about. Trump already does whatever helps Putin so there's no loss there. Doing nothing is Zelensky's only option.
 
Parnas has turned over audio recordings of Trump and Giuliani to the House.

I'm heading to the store to stock up on popcorn.
 
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.

Had Sondland taken the 5th, the House committee would have simply granted him immunity.

Walter Shaub, former Director of the Office of Government Ethics, tweeted:




Given Trump's transactional personality and love of reciprocity (a.k.a. quid pro quo), I'd bet that a lot of the items on that list are also on Trump's "promises made, promises kept" list -- the question being, to whom they were made.
That would have been more effective had it been shorter. Quite a lot of redundancy.
It's not even that. That, as vile as it would be, would at least be an actual position with actual goals.

Now it's more like "Well they didn't let me ban abortions or put the inferior races in their place so I'm just going to pull the whole system down around our heads out of spite."
Trump has no desire to ban abortions. He's probably paid for quite a few.
Parnas has turned over audio recordings of Trump and Giuliani to the House.

I'm heading to the store to stock up on popcorn.

And Nunes? Please tell me he's also turned over recordings of Nunes! And his cow.
 
*Deadpan* Oh no not tapes. What we listen to them and somehow learn that Trump did the thing we already know he did and he already admitted he did and dared us to do something about it, that his followers have already made their excuses and rationalizations for, and that hasn't changed his approval or support ratings. Why that would change everything.
 
Re: Roberts and potential bias of his actions....
he has also given card-blanche for GOP gerrymandering without limits.
While OT, this isn't actually correct. The SCotUS ruling wasn't that there was carte blanche (not card-blanche) but rather that the Federal Court System did not have Jurisdiction in the matter, meaning it was up to the States to determine their own rulings individually. Basically they said, "As a part of the Federal Government, we don't have the right to tell every State Government what they can and can't do in the matter, so if you want a ruling, well that is up to each individual State Court to do it for that particular State."
True, the ruling was "We will leave it up to the states" rather than "Gerrymandering is fine".

However, the problem is that the states that are most likely to engage in gerrymandering are ones that have the republicans entrenched in power (and who have been appointing their own conservative judges), which means that the state supreme courts in those areas are likely to rule that "Gerrymandering is A-OK."

The fact that the ruling was 5-4, and had a rather typical conservative-liberal split suggests that yes, it was a tacit approval of gerrymandering by Roberts.

The right to vote, and the right to ensure adequate political representation is one that should be universal across the United States. Roberts and the conservatives on the supreme court said "Nope, we don't care how badly people are abused, as long as it keeps the republicans in power".
 
I mean on one hand we have a Democratic House that is saying the President withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating the Bidens and on the other hand we have a Republican President saying that the President withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating the Bidens. I don't know which side to believe.

We obviously need more investigation.

Has Trump said that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom