Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 298

Thread: Impeachment Inquiry of Donald John Trump

  1. #196
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,929
    BF,

    Think of it another way Buck, is there a better way to measure just where Trump's Presidency is at that John Bolton might look like some sort of ethical bastion.

    Strange days indeed.
    heh, even -relatively- speaking, it's probably less a case of "ethical bastion" vs "I'm intelligent enough to know that there's legal liability involved."

    the revelation that Bolton knew what was going on but decided to keep shut about it, even after getting unceremoniously booted out of the WH, actually makes me take back my earlier statement-- I hope he gets another dose of the Trump treatment now.

    also, note that Bolton reaching out to the WH lawyers to "warn them" shows how much out of the loop he was on stuff -- those same lawyers ended up moving the transcript to the NSC codename network, and hell, Trump was the one whom was dictating to Amb Sondland on what to say re "quid pro quo"! it wasn't a "Rudy and Mulvaney" drug deal, it was a -Trump- and Rudy drug deal!
    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. #197
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,929
    snapper,

    Would an electoral defeat 'Trumpism' or negate endless conspiracy theories spun by Turnip supporters?
    it is better than the alternative...and if the defeat is bad enough, I hope it'll spawn an internal GOP civil war vs the current state of pathetic servitude.
    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

  3. #198
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    snapper,



    it is better than the alternative...and if the defeat is bad enough, I hope it'll spawn an internal GOP civil war vs the current state of pathetic servitude.
    Is their current servitude towards Trump or towards their base? Is it their fault if the base seems to be solidly behind Trump no matter how he behaves? From what I understand, during the 2018 mid-terms there were certain GoP candidates who tried to somewhat distance themselves from Trump and got booted out. You know politicians. Given a choice between doing the right thing and getting elected, most will choose the latter.

  4. #199
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,929
    firestorm,

    Is their current servitude towards Trump or towards their base? Is it their fault if the base seems to be solidly behind Trump no matter how he behaves? From what I understand, during the 2018 mid-terms there were certain GoP candidates who tried to somewhat distance themselves from Trump and got booted out. You know politicians. Given a choice between doing the right thing and getting elected, most will choose the latter.
    the Founders thought of the legislative as a check on the executive, to "set ambition against ambition". as recently as the 1970s the GOP party leadership forced Nixon's hand.

    i realize there's a number of systematic flaws that have since developed that have seriously warped the political incentives here, but on the other hand...we're talking about imperiling the national security of the United States via blunt coercion of a US partner for domestic political gain...and not about lying about a blow job. the standard "that's just what politicians do" argument doesn't cut it.

    i understand that the idea that the GOP turning on Trump is simply not going to happen. so, as i said, here's hoping for Trump's defeat in the election followed by internal GOP blood-letting.
    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

  5. #200
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestorm View Post
    I assume you are referring to his loss of the popular vote when you say "another loss" and "another clear repudiation". I don't think the American people get a pass for electing trump using that excuse. For better or worse the American people elected him and no one else. He losing the popular vote is meaningless. American presidents have always been chosen by the electoral college.Both the American people and the candidates knew this before going into the election and the candidates structured their campaigns accordingly. If both Trump and Hillary knew beforehand that the popular vote was going to decide the election, they would have both run their campaigns differently perhaps and you do not know if the result would have been different necessarily.

    You may submit that the electoral college does not work and does not represent a will of the majority and needs to go and that is fine. But if it goes that still does not apply retrospectively to results of past elections. Trump was most definitely elected by the American people using the mechanism in use at the time.
    Yes I'm referring to his loss of the popular vote. Regardless of the Constitutional mechanism that put him in office, the fact remains that 2.8 million more Americans voted for his opponent than him.
    His losing the popular vote was meaningless to that Constitutional mechanism, yes, but it also means that the majority of Americans Did Not Want This Man In Office, Period.

    I'm saying nothing about the electoral college and I'm not speculating on how Trump or Clinton could've or should've run their campaigns. This is sheer numbers and the numbers don't lie.
    “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. #201
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,719
    Donald Trump's impeachment blockade has collapsed.

    The president's former top Russia adviser, Fiona Hill — the first White House official to cooperate in Democrats' investigation of the Ukraine scandal — has detailed for lawmakers a trail of alleged corruption that extends from Kiev to the West Wing. In dramatic testimony on Monday, she roped in some of Trump's top advisers as witnesses to the unfolding controversy.

    And on Tuesday, a senior State Department official, George Kent, appeared on Capitol Hill to testify about his knowledge of the episode despite an attempt by Trump administration lawyers to block him, according to a source working on the impeachment inquiry. The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for his testimony Tuesday morning, and Kent, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, complied.

    It's the latest evidence that the White House’s stonewalling against congressional requests for documents and testimony is crumbling — and Democrats are feeling a new sense of momentum.

    “Thank you to patriots like @realDonaldTrump appointee Fiona Hill who chose to ignore the obstruction from Trump and gave testimony to Congress today,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “The truth will keep coming out. And Trump cannot stop it.”

    In closed-door testimony described by a source in the room, Hill said she raised concerns with White House officials over the shadow diplomacy efforts of Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who mounted a months-long campaign to discredit Joe Biden on unfounded charges.

    Hill said she shared her concerns with then-national security adviser John Bolton, who encouraged her to report her concerns about Giuliani's efforts to a National Security Council lawyer. She told House impeachment investigators that she met with the lawyer, John Eisenberg, twice. Hill also connected Giuliani's efforts to Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and said Bolton characterized their efforts on Ukraine as a “drug deal.”

    According to a source in the room Monday, Hill said Bolton compared Giuliani to “a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

    And the flood of damaging information isn’t subsiding.

    As lawmakers return to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, a growing number of witnesses this week are set to describe their own role in the controversy, even as the White House has vowed not to engage with House Democrats’ “illegitimate” impeachment effort. The Democratic Caucus is set to meet Tuesday night after a two-week recess to discuss the impeachment inquiry.

    On Wednesday, Michael McKinley, who abruptly resigned last week as a top aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, intends to testify before lawmakers.

    On Thursday, lawmakers are expected to hear from Gordon Sondland, the EU ambassador whose text messages revealed by lawmakers indicated he was aware of efforts to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden. Sondland is reportedly ready to deflect any blame onto Trump about whether there was any quid pro quo involving military aid to Ukraine or a meeting between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington.

    Congressional investigators on Friday will hear from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, who oversees Russia- and Ukraine-related matters at the Pentagon.

    Despite the series of breakthroughs, Democrats will still face resistance from the White House to some of their high-level requests.

    When asked whether Trump's budget office planned to comply with a Tuesday subpoena deadline for documents, a senior administration official would not comment, instead pointing to a White House letter last week that deemed the House impeachment probe “unconstitutional.”

    But Hill’s account underscores how the president’s once-impenetrable barrier to meaningful testimony in Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has been blown apart.

    “The walls are closing in. The details we are learning about the shadow foreign policy operation Trump has been running to benefit himself personally are stunning,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “Why have a democracy, if we allow this to happen without consequence?”

    Though Hill's testimony was the most damning to date, she wasn't the first to put a crack in Trump's wall.

    Earlier this month, former Ambassador Kurt Volker provided text messages between himself and other diplomats in which they described concerns that Trump was using a potential White House visit for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and possibly even military aid, as a cudgel to force the besieged country to probe Biden. Volker testified for nine hours to lawmakers and aides behind closed doors. Trump has forcefully denied that any sort of “quid pro quo” occurred.

    Last Friday, Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, testified about her abrupt removal by Trump, which came amid a smear campaign by Trump's allies that accused her of disloyalty. Yovanovitch's ouster in May infuriated senior State Department officials, and she testified that the ability of bad actors to engineer her removal could be exploited by foreign adversaries.

    Kent served under Yovanovitch in Ukraine for three years. A former State Department official said Kent is “able to peel back layers of the onion that many people can’t,” and he is likely to speak out against Yovanovitch’s ouster.

    Meanwhile, Giuliani, who is facing a mounting set of legal woes, parted ways with his attorney Jon Sale on Tuesday after Sale sent a letter to the three key investigative committees stating that Giuliani would not comply with a congressional subpoena seeking documents. Sale wrote that the subpoena was “overbroad” and “unduly burdensome.”

    “Jon has done what I retained him for,” Giuliani told POLITICO.

    Vice President Mike Pence is also due to turn over documents by Tuesday, but he has yet to be subpoenaed.

    House Republicans have said little about the substance of Hill's testimony but have complained vehemently about Democrats’ decision to hold witness interviews behind closed doors. They say a matter as weighty as the potential impeachment of a president should be conducted publicly.

    Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has countered this complaint, arguing that the secrecy surrounding the initial interviews is meant to prevent witnesses from aligning their statements.
    _______________

    Notice how the House Republicans "have said little about the substance of Hill's testimony"? They don't have shit in response or defense and they know it.

    The trickle is becoming a flood. Karma's coming and hell's coming with her.
    “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. #202
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,719
    Democrats Weigh Formal Impeachment Vote As Probe Quickens

    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats are gauging support for a vote to formally authorize the impeachment inquiry as another official testified Tuesday in the deepening probe of President Donald Trump’s efforts to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to meet privately with Democratic lawmakers later Tuesday to survey attitudes about a possible vote, according to people granted anonymity to discuss the planning.

    She told reporters she’d have more to say “later,” after the evening meeting with House colleagues.

    Trump, who calls the impeachment inquiry an “illegitimate process,” has pressured Pelosi to take a formal vote. Republicans want to test politically vulnerable Democrats with a roll call that could be difficult in areas where Trump remains popular. But Pelosi has so far resisted, saying Congress is well within its power to conduct oversight of the executive branch as part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, and no vote is needed.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opened the chamber on Tuesday suggesting Democrats were trying to “cancel out” Trump’s election with the march toward impeachment.

    The inquiry is moving quickly as a steady stream of officials, largely from the State Department, are appearing behind closed doors this week, some providing vivid details about the events surrounding the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which Trump urged Zelenskiy to investigate a firm tied to political rival Joe Biden’s family and Ukraine’s own involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
    ______________

    Personally I have zero problems with the Dems holding an impeachment inquiry vote.
    It's not required by the Constitution or House rules, and only happens due to tradition/precedent
    (As if Trump and the GOP give a fly fuck about those things, otherwise Trump would've released his tax returns years ago)

    The only downside is that the Dems will possibly appear to be dancing to Trump's tune.

    On the other hand, it'll kick a leg out from under Trump and the GOP claiming that the inquiry is "illegitimate", meaning of course it's exposing mountains of Trump's corruption, seemingly every single day.
    It will also demonstrate to anybody on either side of the aisle with doubts in their mind if the Dems are serious or not.

    It won't mean a thing for the investigation of course because Trump will simply move the goalposts and come up with some other childish excuse why impeachment is "illegitimate"

    One thing's for damn certain: Trump is deathly afraid of impeachment, never mind what happens in the Senate.
    “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

  8. #203
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,719
    No impeachment inquiry vote according to Pelosi. So be it. The only impeachment vote that really matters will probably happen before the New Year anyway.
    “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

  9. #204
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,351
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    it is better than the alternative...and if the defeat is bad enough, I hope it'll spawn an internal GOP civil war vs the current state of pathetic servitude.
    I would not wish 'civil war' in either Party anywhere as the result is one party state rule. The current Republican Party in the US has disgraced itself and every 'conservative' principle - it is a 'fake conservative Party'. That does not mean that true conservatives do not exist still though and they must form a counter balance.

  10. #205
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,929
    I would not wish 'civil war' in either Party anywhere as the result is one party state rule.
    nah, nothing so bad; the US system is structured so much for a two-party system that even a pretty comprehensive collapse of one party still allows for -some- strength to remain.

    see examples of 1912, 1972, 2016.

    and this is especially true of the modern-day GOP because their base is geographically diffused vs concentrated.

    by the way, "true conservatism", whether you define that as Reaganite-style conservatism or as "socially liberal, economically conservative", has been dead in the US for some time. neither John McCain or Mitt Romney was popular in their own party.
    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

  11. #206
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,719
    McConnell gives Senate GOP lesson on impeachment trial rules
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans got a civics lesson Wednesday on their roles in an impeachment trial. Rule No. 1: No talking in class.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell led the lesson Wednesday as the chamber's top Republican and as one of a handful of Republicans remaining in the Senate from the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

    McConnell promised that "we intend to do our constitutional responsibilities" and warned that senators won't be allowed to speak because they are jurors. McConnell said such silence "would be good therapy for a number of them."

    The Clinton trial lasted six weeks. One dramatic moment came when Democrat Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia — who was appalled by Clinton's behavior but concluded it didn't merit conviction and removal from office — received a vote on a motion to dismiss the case. Byrd lost, but it demonstrated that there was no way the Democratic president would be convicted by the required two-thirds majority of the Senate.

    McConnell told Republicans that under the rules a motion to dismiss might be made this time by President Donald Trump's defense team. That could cut any trial short.

    The Clinton trial featured fits and starts, but ultimately, the top Democrats and Republicans in the chamber developed a set of rules and procedures to guide their deliberations.

    McConnell had vowed in a fundraising pitch that "the way impeachment stops is with a Senate majority with me as majority leader."

    In fact, all it would take is 34 of the 53 Republicans in the chamber to vote "not guilty" to acquit Trump, which is commonly seen right now as a foregone conclusion.

    Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said, "One of the hardest things for senators to accept is they are not in charge of their own chamber."

    Added Cramer: "I hope we don't have to live through it. I hope we can just read about the last one."
    ______________

    I'm rather shocked that Snappy Turtle seems to be taking his responsibilities seriously vis-a-vis a Senate trial.
    Of course, Trump's team will absolutely make a motion to dismiss and cut things off before they even get started.
    “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

  12. #207
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,719
    White House confirms it tied Ukraine aid to help in pursuing conspiracy theory on DNC hack

    Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until it looked into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukrainian nationals were in possession of a computer server belonging to the Democratic National Committee.

    Asked why the administration had withheld $400 million in military aide allocated by Congress to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression, Mulvaney first cited the president’s desire to make sure Kiev’s government was not corrupt. Then, confirming a quid pro quo laid out in the partial summary released by the White House of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mulvaney cited a conspiracy theory involving the DNC server that housed emails leaked during the 2016 campaign.

    Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and some in the administration have been looking for evidence that the DNC hack was carried out by Ukrainian agents seeking to help the Clinton campaign, rather than Russians trying to help Trump — which was the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies.

    “Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney responded when asked about “Absolutely. Not question about that. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money.”

    In a tone as defiant as the one used by the president he works for, Mulvaney then asserted that there was nothing improper about placing such conditions on military aid.

    “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences,” Mulvaney said.


    When ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl pointed out that withholding aid to Ukraine until an investigation into the DNC server was launched was the very definition of a quid pro quo, Mulvaney responded, "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

    Former Trump national security aide Thomas Bossert last month blasted the the president and his aides for pushing the “conspiracy theory” that the DNC server, which was hacked by Russian intelligence agents during the 2016 election, was now in Ukraine.

    "It's not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked," Bossert told ABC News.


    During his July 25 call, Trump made clear that he placed stock in the story and wanted Kiev’s government to look into it.

    “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike,” Trump told Zelensky, referring to the computer-security company that investigated the hack for the DNC. “I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

    Separately, Trump and Giuliani asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden regarding his son Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine, now the focus of the impeachment investigation in the House. The administration has maintained that its intent was to root out corruption and that it was coincidental that the allegations it was probing involved a leading Democratic candidate to run against Trump in 2020.

    Mulvaney insisted that withholding military aid had nothing to do with that investigation.

    “The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden,” Mulvaney said.

    ___________

    This is the typical Trump/Republican play for every scandal. Deny it ever happened, and then when evidence is mounting that it did happen, suddenly admit that it did, but say there's nothing wrong with it.

    They knew that Ambassador Sondland and Pompeo's aide were due to testify and these guys are trying to get in front of it.

    Next thing you know, they'll proudly admit that the money for Ukraine had everything to do with Biden.
    “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

  13. #208
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,929
    TH,

    I'm rather shocked that Snappy Turtle seems to be taking his responsibilities seriously vis-a-vis a Senate trial.
    Of course, Trump's team will absolutely make a motion to dismiss and cut things off before they even get started.
    eh, it's just convenient cover. not taking it up would make it look too obviously like the Senate majority was covering for the President.

    McConnell has already said that he intends to take up the impeachment expeditiously and dispose of it well in advance of the election.
    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

  14. #209
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,719
    Mulvaney says Ukraine remarks were misconstrued

    Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney says his comments about the Trump administration's decision to hold up military aid to Ukraine have been misconstrued.

    Mulvaney issued his statement after the president's outside legal counsel tried to distance itself from Mulvaney's earlier comments at a press briefing.

    Mulvaney now says there was "no quid pro quo" between Ukrainian military aid and that country's willingness to investigate the 2016 U.S. election.

    Mulvaney adds that Trump never told him to withhold money until the Ukrainians took action related to a server Democrats used in the 2016 election.

    At an earlier briefing, Mulvaney had directly cited questions about the DNC server as a reason that money for Ukraine was being held up.

    Trump, for his part, says he still has "a lot of confidence" in Mulvaney.
    ______________________

    "That's why we held up the money..." Um, that...that sounds an awful lot like a quid pro quo. Wait, did I misquote him?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mick Mulvaney
    “Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney responded when asked about “Absolutely. Not question about that. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money.”

    In a tone as defiant as the one used by the president he works for, Mulvaney then asserted that there was nothing improper about placing such conditions on military aid.

    “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences,” Mulvaney said.

    Nope, that's exactly what he said. And he was proud of it.

    I wonder why he's not proud now?
    “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. #210
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,600
    I suspect the decision to host the G7 leaders at a Trump resort may soon feature regularly on this thread. This is precisely the sort of easily understood issue that Congress might decide to take on, especially as it is directly addressed by the Constitution. It is so symbolic of Trump's 'the President can do anything he wants' attitude.

    For anyone curious, check out Fox contributor Andrew Napolitano - not exactly a flaming liberal.

    "It's not my notion," replied Napolitano. "It's the Constitution's notion. The Constitution does not address profits. It addresses any present, as in a gift, any emolument as in cash of any kind whatever. I'm quoting the emoluments clause: from any king, prince or foreign state."

    "If this were a meeting of the governors of the United States there'd be no emoluments clause problem," the judge continued. "The purpose of the emoluments clause is the keep the President of the United States of America from profiting off of foreign money—here we go again. Not in the campaign, but in an event or entity that he controls and is running."

    "This is about as direct and profound a violation of the emoluments clause as one could create."

    Cavuto then repeated the claim that Trump's golf resort would not make money on the event, but suggested it could still benefit from a "spillover effect" long after the summit. The judge again emphasized that he believed Mulvaney's claim was irrelevant.

    "Most respectfully, Mr. Mulvaney's focus on profit—while it may make sense in the economic world, is not what the framers were concerned about," said Napolitano. "They were concerned about a gift or cash coming directly or indirectly to the President of the United States, even if it's done at a loss."

    "The president owns shares of stock in corporation that is one of the owners of this, along with many other investors. He also owns shares of stock in the corporation that manages it," added the judge."Those corporations will receive a great deal of money from foreign heads of state because this is there. That's exactly, exactly what the emoluments clause was written to prohibit.
    https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-ju...cision-1466094


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Donald Trump Has Disappointed Me
    By THL in forum International Economy
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09 Jan 07,, 21:11
  4. Democrats say No impeachment for Bush
    By maddog88 in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 13 Nov 06,, 11:35

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
  •