• 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.
Belz... said:
By the way, Ziggurat is wrong. I was not refering to anyone here, generally or specifically. My post was exactly about what it was written about.
Click to expand...

What? Your post was exactly about what it was written about? Well, color me shocked to the core!
 
The WAPO is reporting that emails between the OMB and Mulvaney reveal an effort to retroactively rationalize Trump's decision to withhold the aid money to Ukraine.

In early August, Mulvaney asked acting Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought how much longer the aid could be legally delayed as well as the OMB’s progress on developing a legal rationale for the hold. Trump had made the decision in July without consulting anyone on its legality, according to the Post, citing two White House officials.
Click to expand...

Why would they need to "develop a legal rationale' in the first place? Note that these emails trying to come up with a 'legal rationale' were AFTER the WH learned of the whistleblower's report and AFTER all conditions for the money's release had been met.


Vought and other OMB staffers argued for the hold’s legality in the emails with State Department and National Security Officials pushing back, according to the Post, with OMB attorneys arguing it was legally justifiable as long as it was considered a “temporary” hold.

On July 25, the day of Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior budget attorney wrote a memo defending a limited hold, according to the Post.

The review also includes email conversations between OMB and State officials discussing potential legal issues with nearly $400 million in military aid the White House was holding up, according to the Post.
Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ought-to-justify-ukraine-aid-holdup-after-the


Methinks something stinks in the State of Trumplandia. Big time.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Polls have now turned very strongly against Impeachment, especially in swing states. 75% to 25%. Thank you!
Click to expand...
I have a theory that impeachment approval numbers are based on something far different than Trump thinks. Well, for one thing I don't really trust the polls, let alone Trump's characterization. But I think some people are saying that they've heard enough to prove abuse and aren't sure additional articles are needed and that pursuing them is of marginal benefit given the risk involved.

Some of them want to see him trounced at the polls rather than pursuing what can be perceived as a partisan process.

I weigh that against a major upside, which is that it is rattling Trump and may force errors as he sees some of his own staffers decline to fall in their swords for him.
 
Stacyhs said:
Why would they need to "develop a legal rationale' in the first place? Note that these emails trying to come up with a 'legal rationale' were AFTER the WH learned of the whistleblower's report and AFTER all conditions for the money's release had been met.
Click to expand...

Zelinsky hadn't made his announcement. And there really weren't any reasons to put conditions in it to begin with, unless those were OK'd by Congress, IMO.

Methinks something stinks in the State of Trumplandia. Big time.
Click to expand...
I think that can be safely stated, yes.
 
smartcooky said:
To do this, America will need to curb the power of its president. That means doing such things as...

1. Disallowing (in Law) the "nuclear option" for important appointments so that presidents can't stack departments with partisans. This would mean that Judges, the Attorney General and other important appointments must pass a very high bar, a super majority (67-33) or even more, say 80-20 before they can be approved. It would mean that even a corrupt president like Trump could not force through corrupt people like Barr as AG, and totally unsuitable people like Drunky to the bench

2. Taking away the absolute power of the pardon. Make pardons have to be only recommended by the president, and ratified by the Senate by a 2/3 majority. This would prevent a future Trump (i.e. a corrupt president) from dangling pardons to obstruct justice.

3. Taking away the President's power to fire cabinet members without Senate approval, and his ability to appoint acting temporaries to get around the Senate approval step. e.g., if the AG is fired or resigns, the deputy AG automatically becomes the Acting AG by default.

4. Taking away the president's power to declare a National Emergency. Put that in the purview of Congress.
Click to expand...

I was talking about during this impeachment. Like in the next week or two.
 
And I know it's Zelensky, but since it starts out as Cyrillic I don't sweat it too much.
 
Minoosh said:
Zelinsky hadn't made his announcement. And there really weren't any reasons to put conditions in it to begin with, unless those were OK'd by Congress, IMO.

I think that can be safely stated, yes.
Click to expand...

Did Zelensky making an announcement or not really matter? If indeed there was a legal reason for withholding the payment, why the need to start furiously trying to come up with one immediately after they learned of the whistleblower's report?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I was talking about during this impeachment. Like in the next week or two.
Click to expand...

Well there is simply no way to get those Congressional subpoenas enforced as long as Trump's corrupt toady is the AG. He simply will not act, or allow anyone below him to act.

I don't know if it would be possible for Congress to authorise (deputize) MPDC to enforce subpoenas. Probably not legal (outside their jurisdiction or something).
 
smartcooky said:
Well there is simply no way to get those Congressional subpoenas enforced as long as Trump's corrupt toady is the AG. He simply will not act, or allow anyone below him to act.

I don't know if it would be possible for Congress to authorise (deputize) MPDC to enforce subpoenas. Probably not legal (outside their jurisdiction or something).
Click to expand...

Nope. They could do it. I have often thought that would be the best solution. Most likely, they would have some judge issue a stay. But it would force the Supreme Court to act,
 
Stacyhs said:
Did Zelensky making an announcement or not really matter? If indeed there was a legal reason for withholding the payment, why the need to start furiously trying to come up with one immediately after they learned of the whistleblower's report?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stacyhs said:
Did Zelensky making an announcement or not really matter? If indeed there was a legal reason for withholding the payment, why the need to start furiously trying to come up with one immediately after they learned of the whistleblower's report?
Click to expand...
The announcement IIRC was absolutely critical, else what was the White House waiting for? Sonderland had reportedly told Trump that Zelensky was ready to move forward, yet he didn't ever make the announcement.

The funds were released after the whistleblower story broke.

I don't know why Trump's staff goes through the machinations they do. Self-preservation, maybe. I get the feeling legal rationales are important to Barr. He likes to look like a competent lawyer IMO, rather than a political hack who should be disbarred for lack of ethics. Maybe it's just so he has something to tell himself. I imagine the executive does have a little wiggle room to hold up or release funds. Congress had started asking what the holdup was, but I'm not sure how much legal cover Trump really needed. He could just stick to his original excuses. I'm not sure he'd done anything illegal at that point.

I like to think Graham, McConnell and others were getting annoyed with Trump's shennigans, since they *really* wanted Ukraine to have those missiles as a bulwark against Russian expansionism. Trump has no desire to stand in Putin's way, but some of those senators do. It's a potential wedge issue. But when everything broke they had to adopt the line that everything was fine, nothing to see.
 
Stacyhs said:
Exactly. They were trying to cover their asses because they'd been discovered.
Click to expand...
Remember that the July 25th call was moved to an unusual but very secure data store almost immediately, when discovery was only potential, so they knew then that they had a problem. Whatever rationale they'd already concocted had just been blown out of the water by Trump bringing up the Biden family - repeatedly. "Do us a favour" didn't do their carefully crafted rationale any favours at all.

What Trump did there completely negated the whole purpose of back-channels. Even from a moron that needs explaining, and I think it's because Trump had the Bidens and CrowdStrike on his mind to the exclusion of all else at the time - and the evidence is he still does.
 
smartcooky said:
Well there is simply no way to get those Congressional subpoenas enforced as long as Trump's corrupt toady is the AG. He simply will not act, or allow anyone below him to act.
Click to expand...
I think Barr is the greatest danger the US faces right now, and that history will bear me out. With him as AG the law has become an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. To be wielded not in the service of the Republican Party, nor even of Trump, but in the service of a more shadowy power and a project of a very peculiar and rabidly anti-democratic Christian nature.



And I don't mean the Tea Party.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny, how that timing worked, heh heh heh. You'd think some loyal Americans with knowledge of the solicitation of the bribe subverted the president. Good on 'em. I hope they get medals once we get a real president.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was a close-run thing, as I understand it, and the only source appears to be the CNN interviewer, and Zelensky ain't saying nuttin' about nuttin', except that's he fed-up with the whole damn subject. If true, Zelensky dodged a bullet there. Or ... is Zelensky the whistleblower? :eek:


Be wary of good comedians, because they are generally very clever. Good comedy depends on cleverness.
 
smartcooky said:
Well there is simply no way to get those Congressional subpoenas enforced as long as Trump's corrupt toady is the AG. He simply will not act, or allow anyone below him to act.

I don't know if it would be possible for Congress to authorise (deputize) MPDC to enforce subpoenas. Probably not legal (outside their jurisdiction or something).
Click to expand...

It's not the AG that enforces them, it's the job of the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom