Page 10 of 45 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 665

Thread: The Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

  1. #136
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,121
    BF,

    She lacks any sort of cut through, which is something of a letdown. She can't be a worse AG than the current jellyfish, so I guess its not all bad.
    she showed off pretty good questioning chops for the Barr and Kavanaugh nomination process. usually the whole process is about a Senator trying to push talking points given free national media vs actually, well, questioning.

    but that's not sufficient for a Presidential-level campaign.

    Bernie's heart flutter and Biden's issues might make her path a bit easier. We'll see. Just curious, do you see any more credible candidate in the pack and if yes, is there a remote chance they'll win the nomination?
    thankfully this go-around the Sanders folks for the most part like Warren, even if she will never be the Sanders of their nirvana. at least it's not like the oil-water comparison between HRC and Sanders.

    Warren's impressed me by her political ability to not only survive, but to learn from the earlier Trump attacks. she's been more a political fighter and less of the professor that I feared this would turn out to be. as it is, she's set herself pretty well politically because she will end up with the lion's share of the second/third-tier votes.

    i don't foresee any of the second, let alone third-tier candidates recovering at this stage in the game. when Harris bows out, most of her constituency will go right into the Warren camp. same thing with Buttigieg (i personally would like to see a Warren-Buttigieg ticket). if and when Sanders goes, then they will flock to Warren.

    Biden might pick up the Beto people (there's a guy I can't stand) and Klobuchar, which is worth like 3% combined.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  2. #137
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    How the ground shifted on Trump impeachment

    WASHINGTON (AP) — After more than two years of jousting over President Donald Trump's conduct, the ground has shifted in Congress and a move toward impeachment has broken free of constraints.

    That does not mean the path ahead is all set.

    Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who for months had been a powerful brake on restive Democrats wanting to impeach Trump — launched a formal inquiry toward that end, accusing the president of "betrayal of his oath of office," betrayal of national security and betrayal of the integrity of American elections.

    A look at the matter and what's known about what happens next:

    NEXT STEPS

    Six House committees are investigating various aspects of alleged impropriety by the president, with the intelligence committee taking the lead in examining Trump's actions with Ukraine.

    The investigations are on an expedited basis, though with no specific deadline.


    Ultimately, the House Judiciary Committee would be the panel responsible for recommending any articles of impeachment against Trump.

    If the panel backs impeachment articles, the matter goes to the full House for a vote. Democrats control the House and its committees.

    If a majority of the full House votes for impeachment, the matter goes to the Senate, which is responsible for holding a trial, overseen by Chief Justice John Roberts. It takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate to force a president from office — a daunting challenge for Democrats if the effort goes that far, given Republican control of that chamber.

    Impeaching a president is often misunderstood to mean his removal. It actually means the House has voted to bring one or more articles of impeachment and send the process forward. No president has been ousted by impeachment.


    ___

    DEMOCRATS BREAK THEIR IMPASSE

    Some Democrats in Congress have long wanted to kick-start the constitutional process to remove Trump, despite the slim odds of success. But they lacked a critical mass and Pelosi's support.

    Trump's machinations to avoid culpability from the Russia investigation fed into their push, but that inquiry came to an indistinct conclusion. Special counsel Robert Mueller's report detailed troubling episodes of presidential behavior, but stopped short of recommending charges for obstructing justice or conspiring with Moscow to tip the 2016 U.S. election to Trump.

    Trump's pre-election payment to a porn actress to maintain her silence and apparent Trump Organization profiteering from his presidency also fueled impeachment sentiment from a segment of the party. But it took a whistleblower's still-secret complaint about Trump's dealings with Ukraine to change the landscape.

    In a nutshell: There's little doubt Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct a corruption investigation of Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son — the president has defiantly stated that he did. He also acknowledged that days before a phone conversation with Ukraine's leader in July, he ordered military aid to Ukraine to be frozen.

    The episode raises the possibility that a president used the power of his office to get a foreign government to help him win reelection.

    Trump denies doing or saying anything improper — and even doubled down on Thursday, openly calling on China to investigate the Bidens. He also plans to challenge the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry because it wasn't approved in a vote by the full House. Democrats say there is no requirement for a vote to start impeachment.

    ___

    WHAT HAS CHANGED

    Pelosi's buy-in on impeachment proceedings is a huge advance for advocates of that approach after the proceedings in the Judiciary Committee were mostly seen as going nowhere. As well, Democrats believe the focus on Trump's dealings with the Ukrainian leader could resonate more than the Mueller report did.

    In terms of congressional process, not much changes, at least at first. The judiciary panel had already begun impeachment hearings and had asked other committees for input. And it's not clear that Pelosi's "expedited" timeline will move things along any more quickly. The committee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, has said he wants to make a decision on whether to recommend articles of impeachment by the end of the year.

    ___

    THE LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED


    You can find partisans during almost every administration who think the president of the opposing party should be thrown out of office between elections. But there hasn't been a serious effort to do that since the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

    In 1998 and 1999, the House under Republican control pursued the impeachment of the Democratic president, primarily based on matters arising from his relationships with women outside his marriage.

    The House approved an allegation that Clinton "willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony" before independent counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury investigation. And it voted to bring forward the accusation that he "prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice." The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him.

    ___

    A RARITY IN HISTORY

    Only two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Clinton. Both won acquittal in the Senate.

    Richard Nixon, who was the subject of impeachment proceedings, resigned from office in 1974 when it looked certain that the House would impeach him and his prospects in the Senate appeared dire.

    ___

    WORDS FROM THE CONSTITUTION

    The Constitution gives the House "the sole power of impeachment" and the Senate "the sole power to try all impeachments."

    And it dictates the removal from office of an impeached president who is convicted by the Senate of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It is left to Congress to define such terms.
    _____________________

    A good summary of events and the steps that will - or will not - happen in the future
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  3. #138
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Trumpism seems a bit like Peronism with fewer tanks and less successes
    Trumpism is Fascism rendered in crayon.... "not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac 'tapping into' popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him."

    "I'm a Leninist...Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment" ~ Steve Bannon (November 12th 2013)

    "Now, you know what solves it? When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell, and everything is a disaster. Then you'll have riots to back to where we used to be, when we were great" ~ Donald Trump (February 10th 2014)
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  4. #139
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    U.S. House Democrats subpoena White House in impeachment inquiry
    WASHINGTON – House Democrats issued a subpoena to the White House Friday evening for documents relating to the president's contact with Ukraine — a so-far unprecedented move that is sure to escalate the rapidly moving impeachment inquiry.

    The House Oversight, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees notified the White House Friday evening in a letter to President Donald Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney.

    The subpoena follows two letters in September where members of Congress demanded information about Trump's efforts to pressure the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the leading Democratic candidates in the 2020 election. In those letters, Democrats asked for all records surrounding Trump's call with the Ukrainian president and documents about the delay of military aid for the country.

    The subpoena demands documents by Oct. 18.

    The chairmen of the House committees — Reps. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Adam Schiff, D-Calf., and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. — who are leading the investigation wrote in a letter to Mulvaney that they regretted that Trump "has put us — and the nation — in this position, but his actions have left us with no choice but to issue this subpoena."

    "The White House has refused to engage with — or even respond to — multiple requests for documents from our Committees on a voluntary basis," the chairman said. "After nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears clear that the President has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction, and cover-up."

    The letter to Mulvaney also includes a warning should the White House not comply with the request: "Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena, including at the direction or behest of the President or others at the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President."


    Friday's subpoena follows yet another intense day of developments in the House's impeachment inquiry. House Democrats asked Vice President Mike Pence for documents on his involvement in the Ukraine scandal and the House Intelligence Committee questioned Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, about a whistleblower complaint that brought Trump's requests about Biden to light.

    The president also was asked about text messages between Trump's then-special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and other U.S. diplomats that showed concern the president was dangling military aid in exchange for investigations that would help him politically.

    The White House has so far indicated that it will not cooperate with document requests unless and until the full House votes to authorize the impeachment inquiry, a move that Democratic leaders argue is not needed to launch an impeachment inquiry.

    Democrats had threatened earlier this week that a subpoena may be issued after not receiving any response.

    Earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham slammed the threat as a waste of time.

    "This is nothing but more document requests, wasted time, and taxpayer dollars that will ultimately show the President did nothing wrong," she said. "The Dems can continue with their kangaroo court, the President will continue to work on behalf of this country."

    Democrats have also issued subpoenas to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for documents and Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney.
    _______________

    Trump will of course do his usual splendid imitation of a stone wall and refuse to comply. What mystifies me is how he's able to defy myriad subpeonas with impunity.
    Has no other President simply not tried something so blatantly unlawful? Is there no recourse for Congress or are they now simply considered subordinate to the Executive Branch?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  5. #140
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    A Running List Of Republicans Criticizing Trump's Ukraine Scandal

    President Donald Trump insisted Friday that “the Republicans are very unified” in supporting him amid accusations that he improperly asked foreign leaders to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 political rival.

    But that’s not entirely true. While the Democratic-controlled House begins an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s conversations with the Ukrainian government about Biden, which were revealed after a whistleblower complaint, cracks are beginning to show in the Republican Party’s front.

    Trump’s public call Thursday for China to investigate Biden, too, appears to have pushed some members of the GOP over the edge.

    Here’s a running list of Republicans who are speaking out about Trump’s apparent attempts to compel foreign governments to aid his reelection campaign.

    Sen. Mitt Romney
    Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah made the biggest splash Friday of any Republican so far when he slammed Trump’s “brazen and unprecedented” calls for foreign meddling in the 2020 presidential election as “wrong and appalling.”

    Sen. Mitt Romney called Trump's actions
    “When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated,” Romney said.

    The week before, Romney also spoke out about Trump’s July phone call with the president of Ukraine.

    Vermont Gov. Phil Scott
    Vermont Gov. Phil Scott was the first Republican governor to publicly support an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

    The action is “appropriate,” he said last week.

    “Congress has a solemn responsibility to every American to fulfill its role in our government system of checks and balances,” he said.

    Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker
    Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker also told reporters last week that he supported an impeachment inquiry.

    “It’s a deeply disturbing situation and circumstance,” he said, “and I think the proper role and responsibility for Congress at this point is to investigate it and get to the bottom of it.”

    Wisconsin Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke
    Republican Jim Steineke, the GOP leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly, took a stand against Trump on Friday after the president insisted on Twitter that he was right to ask other countries to investigate Biden.

    His behavior “cannot be normalized,” Steineke tweeted.

    Sen. Ben Sasse
    Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska couldn’t defend Trump’s actions when speaking to reporters last week.

    “There’s obviously a lot that’s very troubling there,” he said, though he stopped short of supporting an impeachment inquiry.

    “Democrats ought not to be using the word ‘impeach’ before they had the whistleblower complaint or read any of the transcript,” he added, referring to the July 25 call with the Ukraine president.

    But he also criticized Republicans for turning a blind eye.

    “Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons and say there’s nothing there when there’s obviously a lot that’s very troubling there.”
    _______________
    Pretty remarkable on the whole, but I'm sure these guys will be dismissed as RINOs.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  6. #141
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    2nd Whistleblower May Come Forward On Trump's Ukraine Call

    A second intelligence official with even more direct information on President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into meddling in the presidential election may come forward to Congress, The New York Times reported Friday night.

    This potential whistleblower reportedly has firsthand knowledge of the White House’s interactions with Ukraine and was interviewed by the intelligence community’s inspector general during an investigation into the first whistleblower’s complaint about a July 25 call with the president of Ukraine.

    The Times cited two people who had been briefed on the matter in its report.

    This second intelligence official is considering bringing their own whistleblower complaint to Congress, though they haven’t yet done so.

    A potential second whistleblower would further implicate Trump. The first complaint said he abused his power by pressuring Ukraine’s president to dig up information on former Vice President Joe Biden, now a Democratic presidential rival.

    The report of a second government official with even more information may add fuel to the House impeachment investigation.

    Also on Friday night, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to the White House, ordering the Trump administration to hand over documents on its contacts with Ukraine. And earlier Friday, three House committees called on Vice President Mike Pence to submit similar documents.

    Government employees who work in intelligence may submit whistleblower complaints with a level of protection from criminal prosecution and retribution under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
    _________________

    Whelp, that's 3 (and counting) and things have barely kicked off. How long before it becomes a flood?
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  7. #142
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,121
    Pretty remarkable on the whole, but I'm sure these guys will be dismissed as RINOs.
    that list is pathetic and is a damning indictment of the GOP as a whole.

    the only one with balls out of any of them is Justin Amash, whom was willing to not just talk the talk but walk the walk.

    Romney and Sasse, the best they can do is go around tut-tutting, scratching their chins and talking about this as "troubling", as if they were describing a mildly upset stomach.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #143
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,643
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    but that's not sufficient for a Presidential-level campaign.
    No indeed. She & Booker are both discovering that gaining traction nationally when people mostly aren't watching is tougher than doing it when the cameras are on you. Apart from one debate moment Kamala seems to have struggled.


    thankfully this go-around the Sanders folks for the most part like Warren, even if she will never be the Sanders of their nirvana. at least it's not like the oil-water comparison between HRC and Sanders.
    The hardcore Berniebots will never accept her ('establishment!', 'worse than Hilary!'), but I suspect most of them will grudgingly accept her while whining loudly about 'the media' and 'the establishment'. Not expecting a repeat of some of 2016's tantrums.

    Warren's impressed me by her political ability to not only survive, but to learn from the earlier Trump attacks. she's been more a political fighter and less of the professor that I feared this would turn out to be. as it is, she's set herself pretty well politically because she will end up with the lion's share of the second/third-tier votes.
    She is a WAY better campaigner than I expected. We'll see if she can maintain that under greater pressure.

    i don't foresee any of the second, let alone third-tier candidates recovering at this stage in the game. when Harris bows out, most of her constituency will go right into the Warren camp. same thing with Buttigieg (i personally would like to see a Warren-Buttigieg ticket). if and when Sanders goes, then they will flock to Warren.

    Biden might pick up the Beto people (there's a guy I can't stand) and Klobuchar, which is worth like 3% combined.
    I don't see Sanders going until it is clear that he has zero chance (or he has more heart attacks) and I suspect Biden will be similarly determined. It will be interesting to see if black voters warm to Warren. Biden has a huge advantage there now, but if he starts to wobble or Warren picks up some decent endorsements that could change quickly. My bet is that Bernie won't get much joy there. They seem to like his ideas, but not his prospects.

    I suspect Sanders will hit his ceiling in this field soon enough, though I think Joe will get a few more of the minor party supporters. Of course, we don't know how the impeachment mess will play out yet. Lots of balls still in the air.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  9. #144
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,643
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    [B][SIZE=3]Whelp, that's 3 (and counting) and things have barely kicked off. How long before it becomes a flood?
    I'm really hoping a circumstance arises where they get to call McMaster before Congress to give some damning evidence. he doesn't strike me as someone who will weasel out of telling the truth for Trump. I'm not quite as persuaded with Kelly, but maybe he is just waiting his chance to do the right thing.

    There must be a whole bunch of people who know stuff and have been so badly burned by this Administration that they will cheerfully spill. Just have to find the right ones.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  10. #145
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    I think Pelosi's original concern about Impeachment just firing up the GOP base is still valid. Unlike AOC and her noob-cum-goon squad, Pelosi is an experienced and thinking politician who knows her stuff. But her hand has been forced here by these revelations and she does not have the choice to not-impeach anymore.

    Democrats have this vain hope ever since Trump got elected that one more scandal will somehow make enough of the GOP base ditch Trump when all the previous ones did not. It is sheer insanity and Pelosi knows it, but her hands are tied now. It should be clear to anyone at this point that the GOP base simply does not care how Trump got elected or how he manages to stay in office as long as he does. As long as he says the right things and builds that wall, keeps those pesky immigrants out, protects their guns, appoints staunchly conservative judges to the SC they will not care if he molests women, has affairs with pornstars, colludes with Russia or Ukraine or the frickin Ayatollah if he wants to.

    The GOP base will not flip. And Congressional Republicans know that well. So they won't flip either lest they get booted out. This is not the America of the 70's. I guarantee you that if Watergate happened now the GOP base will cheer that unlike what they did back in Nixon's time. Poor Nixon just happened to be president at the wrong time or he would have completed 2 terms. They believe that all Democrats are crooks anyway so what's the harm in spying on them.

    Democrats' only hope is they choose the right candidate for the next election who will fire up enough of their own base like Obama once did. Clearly, HC wasn't up to the task. It is unfortunate that Pelosi herself will never get a chance to be President. I have a feeling she would have probably been better at actually governing the country than pretty much anyone in the running currently.
    I wouldn't count on this. I highly doubt that you'd be able to gather enough Senate Republicans to actually vote for a conviction, but "highly doubt" is not the same as "0%." This is an incredibly stupid own-goal by someone who should know better, but Trump is clearly incapable of learning, incapable of taking of notes, and incapable of being briefed. He has a few brief flashes of brilliance, but those are entirely instinctual and not built for a Presidential context. A proper functioning White House would have an agenda set for this phone call with a whole hell of a lot of "NO, DO NOT SAY THIS ON THIS CALL" discussion ahead of time. But...that's not Trump's style.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  11. #146
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,985
    Trump lashed out big time at Romney. Romney hasn't exactly been a full throated critic of Trump these last few days even though he has criticized his actions. Almost like he is holding back a little against a man who can't threaten his position and a man who isn't favored by the Mormon Church in Utah. Will he react more forcefully? Will he act like Joesph Welch?

    In a crude attack against a sitting senator from his own party, Trump tweeted, "Mitt Romney never knew how to win. He is a pompous 'ass' who has been fighting me from the beginning, except when he begged me for my endorsement for his Senate run (I gave it to him), and when he begged me to be Secretary of State (I didn't give it to him). He is so bad for R's!"
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/polit...uke/index.html

    We also have this from the stable genius

    "I’m hearing that the Great People of Utah are considering their vote for their Pompous Senator, Mitt Romney, to be a big mistake. I agree! He is a fool who is playing right into the hands of the Do Nothing Democrats! #IMPEACHMITTROMNEY," Trump tweeted.

  12. #147
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,121
    A proper functioning White House would have an agenda set for this phone call with a whole hell of a lot of "NO, DO NOT SAY THIS ON THIS CALL" discussion ahead of time. But...that's not Trump's style.
    this also assumes that the President will listen to said discussion. WaPo recently just did an article about how Trump's own advisers were horrified at his international calls. the Putin "DO NOT CONGRATULATE" call being one of them.

    frankly Trump should be a conservative's Example No. 1 of that whole "this is why we're a republic, not a democracy" argument.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  13. #148
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    2nd Whistleblower May Come Forward On Trump's Ukraine Call

    A second intelligence official with even more direct information on President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into meddling in the presidential election may come forward to Congress, The New York Times reported Friday night.

    This potential whistleblower reportedly has firsthand knowledge of the White House’s interactions with Ukraine and was interviewed by the intelligence community’s inspector general during an investigation into the first whistleblower’s complaint about a July 25 call with the president of Ukraine.
    Aaaaand, confirmed:

    2nd whistleblower comes forward after speaking with IG: Attorney
    Mark Zaid, the attorney representing the whistleblower who sounded the alarm on President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine and triggered an impeachment inquiry, tells ABC News that he is now representing a second whistleblower who has spoken with the inspector general.

    Zaid tells ABC News' Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that the second person -- also described as an intelligence official -- has first-hand knowledge of some of the allegations outlined in the original complaint and has been interviewed by the head of the intelligence community's internal watchdog office, Michael Atkinson.

    The existence of a second whistleblower -- particularly one who can speak directly about events involving the president related to conversations involving Ukraine -- could undercut Trump's repeated insistence that the original complaint, released on Sept. 26, was "totally inaccurate."
    ____________

    The next 12 months or so are going to be...interesting.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  14. #149
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,224
    Quote Originally Posted by GVChamp View Post
    I wouldn't count on this. I highly doubt that you'd be able to gather enough Senate Republicans to actually vote for a conviction, but "highly doubt" is not the same as "0%."
    As things stand right at this moment in time, the Senate would acquit Trump of pretty much anything.

    But as with Trump's advancing dementia and the state of the economy, time is not on Trump's side.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  15. #150
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,240

    Americans, where are you registered to vote?

    (feel free to add verifiable names to the list, but please: no subtraction)

    The President’s defenders

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R, Ky), Senate Majority Leader, said impeachment stops “with a Senate majority and with me as majority leader.” This isn’t quite what he said 21 years earlier, when Bill Clinton was the target: don’t prejudge the case before the evidence is all in.

    Sen. John Cornyn (R, Tx), up for reelection in 2020, insists without a shred of evidence even being presented, or a single witness even being called, that the Senate will never convict POTUS. Also, says that only eye witnesses can possibly be credible (which would put him at odds with large parts of the Bible, among other documents).

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R, Tx), bemoans the loss of an opportunity to vote in favor of stiff gun control laws because of Democratic lynch mob trying to undo the last election. But, seriously suggested Obama should have been impeached … and said it during Obama’s tenure.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R, Fl), thinks that when he talks to foreign leaders, you can’t take anything Trump says seriously.

    Sen. Roy Blunt (R, Mo), agrees that comments about China interfering in the US 2020 presidential election are not to be taken seriously.

    Sen. Ron Johnson (R, Wi), said that if Trump completely denied it, that was good enough for him.



    Kevin McCarthy (R, Ca), House Minority Leader, points out that the unnamed whistleblower wasn’t on the call (as if he knew that for a fact).

    Jim Jordan (R, Oh), thinks Trump wasn’t serious in his calls for China to involve itself in the 2020 US Presidential election.

    Chris Stewart (R, Ut), House Intelligence Committee member, denied that POTUS ever linked Ukraine arms deal to Bidens and isn’t in the least concerned that a second whistleblower came forward to confirm what the first one said.

    Lance Gooden (R, Tx), first year representative, introduced a resolution to remove House Judiciary chair Jerry Nadler from his post.

    Louie Gohmert (R, Tx), blames Hillary Clinton and others for this “distraction.”

    John Ratcliffe (R, Tx), conspiracy nutjob repeatedly attacking the FBI and claiming Democrats are worse.

    Dan Crenshaw (R, Tx), sees nothing but partisan politics and suspects that it is really nothing more than a Democratic ploy to help “Warren/Sanders..?” against Joe Biden.

    Ron Wright (R, Tx), called out Democrats for launching an investigation without having all the facts already in hand, before the investigation even starts.

    Roger Williams (R, Tx), called out Democrats for launching an investigation without having all the facts already in hand, before the investigation even starts.

    John Carter (R, Tx), called out Democrats for launching an investigation without having all the facts already in hand, before the investigation even starts.

    Mike McCaul (R, Tx), said impeachment is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants.

    Michael Burgess (R, Tx), in addition to Putin claim, also says presidents should be able to talk to other leaders without anyone listening or taking notes.
    Last edited by DOR; 08 Oct 19, at 10:31.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Cult of Donald Trump
    By TopHatter in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 25 Feb 20,, 02:17
  2. Donald Trump rallies infiltrated by paid Hillary Clinton operatives
    By Parihaka in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08 Nov 16,, 15:21
  3. Donald Trump Tells Friends He Will Run for President, Report Says
    By Julie in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02 Mar 11,, 20:01
  4. Donald Trump Has Disappointed Me
    By THL in forum International Economy
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09 Jan 07,, 21:11

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •