No announcement yet.

The Impeachment, Trial and Acquittal of Donald John Trump

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tops, the jihadi mention is linked to the TBM’ post before yours referencing religious warfare. Then you went off with the “cult” statement reaffirming what he had posted.


    • Click image for larger version

Name:	38755.jpeg
Views:	2
Size:	32.1 KB
ID:	1478620


      • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
        Tops, the jihadi mention is linked to the TBM’ post before yours referencing religious warfare. Then you went off with the “cult” statement reaffirming what he had posted.
        Gonna need your help on this one....Control + F search doesn't show "Jihadi" or "Jihadi's". Where did you see either of those two words?

        Or did you just mean the reference to religious warfare in general. Because that was provided by Donald Trump:

        "Tell your congregation that ... we have 350 million people in our country. They're proud Americans, and they respect what we're doing, even those that you don't think so much, like us, respect us, want to be with us," Trump said. "They're respecting our fight. And we are in a fight. Religion in this country and religion all over the world, certain religions in particular, are under siege. We won't let that happen."

        Yeah, there's some symptoms noted all right.
        My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.


        • Trump donor accused of spying on Yovanovitch hands 'everything' to Congress, reports say

          A donor to Donald Trump who was accused of "stalking" the former ambassador to Ukraine at the behest of Rudy Giuliani's associates has provided documents to Congress as it opens its investigation into the ousting of Marie Yovanovitch, a crucial witness in the president's impeachment.

          The Daily Beast reports that Robert Hyde, a Republican congressional candidate from Connecticut, gave "everything" he had between himself and Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani who has been indicted for campaign finance violations involving foreign money.

          Mr Hyde told the outlet he gave the House Foreign Affairs Committee "everything that I had between Parnas and I". He said the committee wanted to "talk about Parnas and how I know him" and said that "you should look into Parnas. Bad man".

          Messages given to House Democrats last month showed Mr Hyde's communication with Mr Parnas suggested that Ms Yovanovitch was under physical surveillance before she was recalled from her post last year, allegedly at Mr Giuliani's urging. Mr Hyde says he was only "joking around" in those messages, and that Ms Yovanovitch was not being stalked.

          The ambassador was allegedly an interference in the president's efforts to pressure Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky​ to find politically damaging information on former vice president and political rival Joe Biden, whose son was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

          That scheme was at the heart of the abuse of power charge in Mr Trump's impeachment, which also included an obstruction of Congress charge for the ensuing alleged cover-up.

          In a recently released audio recording captured by Mr Parnas, Mr Trump can be heard telling him and Igor Fruman to "get rid of her" and "take her out".

          In his 25 July phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, which was at the heart of his impeachment, Mr Trump said of Ms Yovanovitch: "Well, she's going to go through some things."

          In the weeks leading up to her departure from Ukraine, Ms Yovanovitch was the target of a smear campaign, partly in coordination with a reporter from Washington website The Hill, intended to discredit the ambassador and legitimise her removal.

          Congress continues to investigate Mr Giuliani's efforts despite the president's acquittal in his impeachment trial in the Senate, where Republicans blocked efforts to bring witnesses to the stand or introduce any newly emerged evidence.

          After she left Ukraine, Ms Yovanovitch became a senior state department fellow at Georgetown University, then announced her retirement in January. She served as an ambassador in several countries under three presidents before her appointment to Ukraine, where she served from August 2016 until her removal in May 2019.

          She gave testimony to the impeachment hearings late last year, receiving a round of applause from observers as she left the chamber.

          As promised, more of Trump's bullshit keeps coming to light. Gonna be a loooong summer for Team Trump.
          My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.


          • Devastating Court Ruling Allows White House To Block Testimony From Former Counsel Don McGahn

            A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Friday dismissed a lawsuit from House Democrats who were seeking testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn as part of a broader investigation into President Donald Trump.

            In a 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, agreeing with the Trump administration’s position that the U.S. Constitution forbids federal courts from resolving interbranch information disputes.

            “The Committee’s suit asks us to settle a dispute that we have no authority to resolve,” the opinion states.

            The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn in 2019 as part of its investigation into Trump’s potential obstruction of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. McGahn previously told Mueller’s grand jury that Trump ordered him to direct the Department of Justice to fire Mueller in 2017 in order to end the probe. He did not carry out the order. This incident appeared as one of 10 potentially obstructive acts committed by Trump in Mueller’s final report.

            Democrats sought to bring McGahn before the committee to get his testimony on this alleged obstruction. But the White House declared that the president and his direct aides had an “absolute immunity” from congressional investigation and ordered McGahn not to honor the subpoena. The administration never made a formal declaration of executive privilege over McGahn’s testimony.

            The court said Democrats will just have to find some other way to force the administration to comply with their demands.

            “Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President’s nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President’s legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers,” the court wrote. “And Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray.”

            Democrats haven’t embraced the use of hardball legislative tactics to gain leverage. For a time last year, they entertained the idea of using their own power to arrest or fine recalcitrant administration officials, but ultimately rejected using the so-called “inherent contempt” power.

            The majority opinion is clear to state that its decision only applies to certain interbranch disputes and not subpoenas issued by Congress to private individuals or entities. ”[W]e may adjudicate cases concerning congressional subpoenas if they implicate the rights of private parties, as in Mazars,” the opinion reads, noting a key case currently before the Supreme Court where a congressional committee has subpoenaed Trump’s personal financial records from his accounting firm. The opinion also does not overrule any future attempt by Congress to pass a law enabling it to bring disputes with the executive branch to the federal judiciary.

            The court acknowledged there are several past instances of Congress using courts to settle disputes between Congress and the White House, including a favorable decision House Republicans got in the Fast and Furious case against former Attorney General Eric Holder. But the court said “the legal basis for that practice is dubious.”

            Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented from the opinion, writing that the majority’s ruling “removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiations process seeking accommodation, all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional duties.”

            A concurrence to the majority opinion filed by Judge Karen L. Henderson directly addressed the claim of “absolute immunity” to state that it “rests on shaky legal ground.”

            The decision will have immediate implications for Democrats’ efforts to get President Trump’s tax returns. The administration refused their formal request last year, and the case has been stuck in a lower court. The judge in that case paused the proceedings to wait for an outcome in the McGahn case. Now that the appeals court has dismissed it, the lower judge is likely to say Democrats lack standing to sue for the president’s taxes.

            Shortly after the McGahn ruling dropped, the judge in the tax case ordered a hearing for next week.

            A federal judge had previously ruled that McGahn must comply with the subpoena, writing that “Presidents are not kings” and were subject to congressional oversight.

            Another brick in the Trump stonewall. Huge surprise.

            Funny how the judges claimed that Congress could wield "political weapons" without dragging judges into the fray.
            My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.


            • Fired ambassador, apparently lied in her testimony.