Weekend Open Thread
[guest post by Dana]
I’m 7 days into a cold/flu, so the weekend open thread is bare bones.
Feel free to talk about anything you think is newsworthy or might interest readers.
I’ll start.
First news item: Joe says no:
Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) said Friday that he would not comply with a Senate subpoena to testify in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
“What are you going to cover?” Biden said when asked about a subpoena in an interview with the Des Moines Register’s executive editor Carol Hunter. “You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said. And (Trump’s) going to get away. You guys buy into it all the time. Not a joke.”
He went on to say it would be part of Trump’s tactic to “take the focus off” himself.
Second news item:Eddie Gallagher’s fellow SEALs had harsh words for platoon leader:
The Navy SEALs who served beside Special Operations Chief Eddie Gallagher described their platoon leader as “toxic,” “freaking evil” and a “psychopath,” in new video recordings…
The recordings are part of the Navy’s investigation into Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes stemming from a 2017 deployment to Iraq. Gallagher in July was found not guilty of murder and premeditated murder but was convicted of a lesser charge of posing for a photo with an Islamic State (ISIS) fighter’s corpse.
In one of the recordings, Special Operator 1st Class Craig Miller, one of the most experienced SEALs in the group, can be seen weeping.
“The guy is freaking evil,” Miller told investigators.
In a separate interview, Special Operator 1st Class Joshua Vriens, a sniper, called Gallagher “toxic.”
The platoon’s medic, Special Operator 1st Class Corey Scott, described Gallagher as the type of person who was “perfectly OK with killing anybody that was moving.”
Third news item: Radio legend dies:
Don Imus, the radio personality whose insult humor and savage comedy catapulted him to a long-lasting and controversial career, has died at 79. His three-hour radio program, Imus in the Morning, was widely popular, especially with the over 25-male demographic.
Imus died Friday morning at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center in College Station, Texas, after being hospitalized on Christmas Eve, a representative said.
…
Imus was loved or hated for his caustic loudmouth. Outspoken in an age of political correctness, his often coarse satire offended sensibilities. Yet his listeners included those whom he often ridiculed. His call-in guests included President Clinton, Dan Rather, Tim Russert, Bill Bradley, David Dinkins, Rudy Giuliani and political analyst Jeff Greenfield, who once remarked, “He’s out there talking the way most of us talk when we’re not in public.”
He sparked national outcry in 2007 when he made derogatory, racist remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. CBS Radio and MSNBC then dropped his show.
He rebounded by signing a multiyear contract with the Fox Business Network in 2009 to simulcast Imus in the Morning from 6-9 a.m., with Fox anchors appearing during the program.
Fourth news item: Federal judge says no:
A federal judge on Friday denied an effort to restore 98,000 Georgia voters who were removed from the state’s voter rolls this month because they haven’t participated in elections for more than eight years.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones’ ruling upholds the cancellation of these inactive voters under Georgia’s “use it or lose it” law, which allows election officials to remove people who didn’t vote or respond to mailed notification letters.
Jones wrote in a 32-page order that the plaintiffs, led by the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, failed to show that the cancellations violated the U.S. Constitution. Jones wrote that the plaintiffs could still ask the Georgia Supreme Court to interpret the state law about inactive voters.
In all, nearly 287,000 registrations were canceled this month because those registered either moved away or stopped participating in elections. An additional 22,000 inactive voters were initially removed but reinstated by the secretary of state’s office because those voters had contacted election officials in early 2012, before the cancellation cut-off date.
Have a great weekend.
–Dana
Off to bed I go.
Dana (643cd6) — 12/28/2019 @ 9:38 amHeal soon, Dana. I am in my second day of the flu. Traveling during the winter often results in picking up something infectious.
felipe (023cc9) — 12/28/2019 @ 9:48 amGet better Dana.
__
Ezra Klein
@ezraklein
It’s no coincidence that Trump and Boris Johnson are in power at the same time. They both understand how to use lies, offense, and outrageousness to control the conversation. That gets them power, which makes their lies, etc, more newsworthy, which gives them yet more control.
__ _
Guy Faux
@Faux_Guy_
·
Cool story. Now talk about “Journolist”.
__ _
Earl of Lemongrab
@EarI0fLemongrab
·
Maybe we should have a private forum where all left wing journ-o-lists can assemble to determine what they are supposed to report and how they are supposed to think about it….I’m just spitballing here. Do you think it could work though?
__ _
Huy Fong
@Mott5
·
Yeah I remember when the most honest president of all time said that health insurance premiums would decrease and we could all keep our insurance and doctors. When the opposite happened all the “honest media” never once bothered asking him about it.
__ _
Robert Noerr
@NoerrRobert
·
We again see a striking example of the dems, media, intel community, (deep state) accusing others of exactly what they did.
They are now claiming wanting to investigate Ukrainian interference is “spreading Putins talking points”.
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/28/2019 @ 10:01 am__
Get well soon, Dana.
nk (dbc370) — 12/28/2019 @ 10:07 amHope you feel better Dana!
I was amused to look out my window on Christmas day and see snow on nearby Saddleback Mountain. A white Christmas here in Orange County!
Of course the much taller (and more distant) San Gabriel Mountains often have snow this time of year, but Saddleback is only a few minutes from where I live in Mission Viejo.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/28/2019 @ 10:32 amEmergenc 1000mg vitamin c
mg (8cbc69) — 12/28/2019 @ 12:01 pmRIP I-man
Listened to him a lot when he was at WFAN and simulcasted.
You didn’t hear too many radio hosts with a background of uranium miner, railroad brakeman and US Marine.
He could be totally clueless but compared to all the other morning shows his had a refreshingly higher tendency to call out bulls**t, even though he seemed mesmerized and adoring of those such as John Meacham or Frank Rich spouting off DNC talking points. And the humor on the show was strong and steady.
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/28/2019 @ 12:07 pmThe item about Don Imus (#3) says he was fired by CBS for his remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. The report conveniently omits that CBS had to pay him a very substantial sum for breach of contract. Don’s contract stipulated that he had to be provocative and edgy and his dismissal over this issue violated his contract.
sam glasser (1d6c2e) — 12/28/2019 @ 12:34 pmAlso, as an aside, when this controversy first broke, then NJ Gov. Jon Corzine raced to some sort of event featuring the basketball team. It was so urgent that he instructed his police chauffeur to speed down the GardenState Parkway at 90 MPH (limit is 55) which caused an accident involving the Gov’s SUV and a civilian vehicle. It put Corzine in the hospital for a while. Appearing with aggrieved college B-ball players was so urgent as to risk life and limb of every unwitting motorist on the highway.
@7.”Imus In The Mourning?”
Not likely.
A totally bigoted gutter snipe; a lowlife scumbag who aided and accelerated the decline and coarsening discourse on the public airwaves across America conservatives have relentlessly complained about, simply to “entertain” and line his own saddlebags. His estimated worth at time of death, per celebritynetworth.com: $45 million. Dead Don Imus couldn’t buy his way into Heaven but he’ll certainly be a hot ticket entertaining the spirits he gleefully lampooned in Hell; his ‘Dead Dick Nixon’ should get a good laugh from Dead Dick Nixon himself around the eternal campfire with Jerry Falwell’ “Hell-o, I-Moe…”– and good riddens, pork chop; Save a seat for Howard Stern.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/28/2019 @ 12:46 pmGet better quick, Dana. Plenty of fluids, lots of sleep and no booze on New Year’s Eve. You’ll rediscover New Year’s morning in a whole new light!
______
So much for the ‘rule of law’ from a former Veep of the USA: pledges to defy lawfuly issued subpoenas is a prerequisite for running for POTUS, eh? Saves time peeing on the oath of office ahead of time, eh, JoeyBee?
Idiot.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/28/2019 @ 12:59 pmGuess those subpoenas to get the White House tapes ‘took the focus off’ “Peace With Honor” for The Big Dick, too, eh JoeyBee?
Idiot.
Next time you send a CC payment to a PO box in Delaware, thank Joe Biden; the Big Bank$ $ure thank him.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/28/2019 @ 1:05 pmHope you feel better soon, Dana. I recommend an ‘old wife’s’ apothecary. There’s something about those. Whenever you have a cold or flu, try this.
Mix a shot of whiskey (1 oz.) with a tablespoon of honey and a tablespoon of lemon juice. You’d be surprised at how effective that drink is, and it tastes good too.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 12/28/2019 @ 1:09 pmWhat Don Imus is to DCSCA, Seth McFarlane is to me.
urbanleftbehind (ded116) — 12/28/2019 @ 1:39 pm“ Dead Don Imus couldn’t buy his way into Heaven“
Ask God if the Sooners have a shot today.
He really ticked off the perpetually butt hurt.
You reinforced my opinion of him, both good and bad. Outstanding effort.
harkin (464071) — 12/28/2019 @ 1:49 pmMr Glasser, good post. I fear Justice Kavanaugh may end up in a similar caper as Corzine, due his sincere interest in womens bball.
urbanleftbehind (ded116) — 12/28/2019 @ 1:58 pm@14. No, he just lowered the caliber of popular discourse on the public airwaves to a cheap coarseness only a person more comfortable using corncobs than toilet tissue could enjoy.
Bury him with the bones of Morton Downey, Jr. If you warmed to the I-Man shtick, then conservatives have zero grounds for angst and complaints toward the likes of Kathy Griffin, Amy Schumer or Howard Stern.
@13. Dead Don Imus makes Sar Silverman sound positively angelic.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/28/2019 @ 2:14 pm@13. Postscript: hence he has found a home- and the target audience– on Fox.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/28/2019 @ 2:30 pmCan’t the Senate force Biden to testify?
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/28/2019 @ 3:19 pmRIP – Sue Lyon
harkin (464071) — 12/28/2019 @ 3:22 pm_
pledges to defy lawfuly issued subpoenas is a prerequisite for running for POTUS, eh?
Considering the 2nd article of impeachment against Trump (which charges him from blocking testimony relevant to the House’s impeachment inquiry), Joe is undermining an already weak case. Trump used executive privilege; what is Joe claiming?
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/28/2019 @ 3:23 pmCan the senate do a early morning raid with AK’s and CNN on bidens house?
mg (8cbc69) — 12/28/2019 @ 3:23 pmI would so love to see Joe Biden dragged into the Senate in handcuffs.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/28/2019 @ 3:25 pmleg ironed next to his son
mg (8cbc69) — 12/28/2019 @ 3:27 pmhttps://thefederalist.com/2019/12/27/how-an-unlimited-supply-of-borrowed-cash-is-destroying-higher-education/
mg (8cbc69) — 12/28/2019 @ 3:28 pmBiden is not on trial.
What information does he have about Trump’s abuses of power and obstruction?
Dave (1bb933) — 12/28/2019 @ 4:04 pmThe case against Eddie Gallagher was the main front page news story in the New York Times on Friday. It was leaked (against the law actually but the paper doesn’t say so)
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/28/2019 @ 4:06 pmJpe Biden is hopin to stop a subpoena by saying he will defy one.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/28/2019 @ 4:08 pmThe information Biden has is an explanation of what he said in the Q&A period in the January 23, 2018 speech in front of the Council on Foreign Relations. If he told the truth, he shouldn’t have any problems. But he can;’t explain it, because the whole story about a cancellation or threatened cancellation of a press conference where he was going to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee if they didn’t fire the prosecutor is almost certainly made up out of whole cloth.
Plus what he knew about about his soon working for Burisma. (it’s quite possible that Hunter was brought into Burisma mostly to create an appearance of corrupt backing by the U.S. government.)
The relevancy would go to whether Trump made a legitimate inquiry, although I don;t know if they could stick to that.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/28/2019 @ 4:15 pm“Biden is not on trial.”
It’s like the Trump 2020 ads write themselves.
harkin (464071) — 12/28/2019 @ 4:29 pmWhat information does he have about Trump’s abuses of power and obstruction?
Believe it or not, Trump gets to make a defense, and is not required to bring witnesses who only support the charges.
He might even claim that he had reasons to pressure Ukraine that involved a pursuit of justice, instead of the corruption charged. The fact that you consider that defense ludicrous does NOT mean that he is not entitled to make it. Questioning the persons that Trump believed were engaging in criminal behavior is central to that defense.
Jeez, even rapists get more of a day in court than Dave would give Trump.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:00 pm>>“Biden is not on trial.”
It’s like the Trump 2020 ads write themselves.
For a moment I thought that would be a Biden ad.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:01 pmBy the way, Dave, the “obstruction” charge ought to be dismissed outright as it is merely an UNTESTED legal dispute that the House just didn’t want to wait for in the courts.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:04 pmThe obstruction charge is very strong, given the GOP argued the exact opposite, in the Supreme Court, and it’s black letter law now.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/520/681.html
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:33 pmAwkward phrasing!
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:35 pmNot sure if this is true outside of the northeast, but due to a very wet spring and summer, the leaves stayed green and on the trees way longer than usual. So we had lots of particulate junk in the air this month. The first day of winter was one of the worst days all year of allergies. Woke up and thought I needed to get to Urgent Care, but took a claritin and some sniffle and mostly ok.
Bugg (ebf485) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:36 pmBugg, that’s definitely true in Texas.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:40 pm@19. Only 73; wonder if she’ll make the TCM ‘death reel’ before New Year’s— Bond’s ‘Domino sugar’-Claudine Auger, passed last week and hasn’t yet.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/28/2019 @ 5:58 pm33. your cited case is claimed immunity. We are talking about executive privilege. Executive privilege cover the President conversatations with his advisers,as it pertains to him carrying out his constitutional powers. Bill claimed immunity from prosecution, for raping women.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/28/2019 @ 6:40 pmImus
steveg (354706) — 12/28/2019 @ 7:22 pmThe poor mans Trump
I believe they actually specifically talked about the president having to comply with a subpoena and testify. I base that on these two quotes from my link:
At any rate, the real judge of whether this was impeachable is the House. And Trump was impeached for it, so partisan as that definitely was, it’s a done deal. And the real judge of whether Trump will be convicted is the Senate. If the House vote is any indication, Trump can get away with anything he likes. Though as nk has pointed out, it’s up to 20 GOP senators, and there are probably that many with a grudge.
And why shouldn’t the president be subject to subpoenas? What’s the point of Trump just ordering everyone to refuse to cooperate with an investigation if not to obstruct justice (again)?
Tom Daschle and Bill Clinton were wrong. The GOP had every right to compel Clinton to testify (Which of course he did). What’s changed?
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/28/2019 @ 7:37 pmJust to repeat, Richard Jewell is an extremely well made film and emotional experience that deserves to be seen before it is gone.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/28/2019 @ 8:16 pmFormer Vice President Joe Biden (D) said Friday that he would not comply with a Senate subpoena to testify in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
Did he also say whether, if his grandmother had wheels, she would be a shopping cart? In other words, what subpoena would that be? Has he been served with one?
The #FakeNewsMedia ginning up some non-news while the orange is giving himself carpal tunnel with demented Twitter rants from Mar-a-Lackwit.
nk (dbc370) — 12/28/2019 @ 8:22 pmAvital Chizhik-Goldschmidt
@avitalrachel
·
Three Jews stabbed in a synagogue in Monsey tonight. An intruder came into Rabbi Rottenberg’s shul with a machete.
There are no words to describe the anxiety of this moment.
_ _
NY AG James
@NewYorkStateAG
I am deeply disturbed by the situation unfolding in Monsey, New York tonight.
There is zero tolerance for acts of hate of any kind and we will continue to monitor this horrific situation.
I stand with the Jewish community tonight and every night.
_ _
EmmaP
@EmPaHastings
·
Replying to
@NewYorkStateAG
What the heck New York…
The latest attack occurred Friday when a woman allegedly slapped three females in Brooklyn and later told officers it was because they’re Jewish, police said at a news conference. The woman was released without bail.
__ _
Baruch Sandhaus
@BaruchSandhaus
·
Thank you!! What are we actually going to do about this!? Are we going to continue releasing violent criminals!? Are we going to allow carry permits for those that want to protect themselves.. their families & synagogue
__ _
OakEastS☘️
@Kalm1Kerry
·
Can you imagine all she’s worried about it suing trump. Maybe she should worry about local citizens. As a NYer I am done.
_
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/28/2019 @ 8:46 pmHonestly I have to say this Trump fiasco is so much more bearable now that we can talk about why he was impeached for obstructing justice and trying to bribe another country to screw with our election.
In the history books this will probably get one of those special half page sections with the pastel background to make sure the short attention span kiddos learn what Trump was all about. Definitely the kind of subject with some easy ‘All of the Above’ questions too.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/28/2019 @ 9:07 pm40. Dustin (cafb36) — 12/28/2019 @ 7:37 pm
He ordered it but he didn’t enforce the order. Nobody got fired if they complied with a subpoena..
Former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman pre-emptively went to court and asked it to decide whom he should listen to: Trump or the House Intelligence Committee. Bolton indicated he wold do the same thing if subpoenaed. Mulvaney said he too wanted to join the lawsuit, then Kupperman’s lawyers (who also represented John Bolton) said their interests weren’t identical and he didn’t want to have anything to do with him. Mulvaney then withdrew his petition and said he wold sue on his own, and then Trump told him not to sue, and he didn’t.
And then The House committee withdrew its subpoena of Kupperman so it wouldn’t get tested in court, with Adam Schiff claiming it would take too much time and Kupperman had a duty to comply with a mere request. I think he was afraid that Kupperman and Bolton might testify and spoil his story.
Now what was just about totally effective was Trump refusing to supply documents, except for the (volunteered) call records of the two phone calls Donald Trump had with Zelensky. George Kent didn’t even have access to his own notes since he’d turned them over to the State Department for transfer to Congress. (some people who testified did have records – they may have had permanent access to them, or they were more personal like Volker’s collection of text messages, or mabe he trned them over before they could be asked for.)
One thing Schiff indicated he’d like to get his hands on was the text of the cable Acting Ambassador to Ukraine Blll Taylor sent to the State Department.
There’s other possibilities.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/28/2019 @ 10:51 pmFormer Vice President Joe Biden (D) said Friday that he would not comply with a Senate subpoena to testify in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
nk (dbc370) — 12/28/2019 @ 8:22 pm
The idea is to prevent a subpoena from being issued to him by saying he would defy it. There’s a lot of public opinion involved here.
Now he said he would not defy a subpoena.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1210946785847468033
What do you think are the chances of the Senate agreeing to subpoena witnesses the House managers want to call, but not the ones the president wants to call?
It will opposed on grounds of irrelevancy – Chief Justice John Roberts will rule, his ruling will be appealed and the Senate as a whole will decide.
Now some Republican Senators don’t want this thing.
It can be avoided by making rules that say no witnesses can be called (or on;y specific witnesses – but the Republicans will not want to seem to be unfair to Donald Trump.
Which could mean that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate or name managers.
This will all have t be worked out in advance. If it can’t be…
#FakeInpeachment here we come.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/28/2019 @ 11:09 pmI see.
So next time I get a speeding ticket, my defense will be that I was rushing to prevent Donald Trump from committing a rape. I will present no evidence, apart from Trump’s boasts years ago, but I will demand he respond to a subpoena to appear in court and be questioned under oath by my attorney.
And I will tell you, the judge, and Trump’s lawyers, that the fact they consider my defense ludicrous does NOT mean I am not entitled to make it. Questioning the persons that I believed were engaging in criminal behavior is central to that defense.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/28/2019 @ 11:10 pmhttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/nyregion/monsey-synagogue-stabbing-anti-semitic.html
I don’t believe this is a coincidence. I don’t believe there’s a sudden upsurge in anti-semitism ether. I believe this is a conspiracy. Not so much by a terrorist group as by a criminal group, which might be getting paid money too. Because this is too stupid for someone to think up on their own.
Maybe some new organized crime group wants to distinguish itself by anti-semitism and attacks on Jews. Perhaps use it as an organizing principle. That will separate out members and non-members. It’s still stupid. It may be that they think accusing blacks of anti-semitism is somewhere authorities do not want to go, because it will inspire sympathy for them, and they’ll be immune from being pursued for their other criminal activities.
As more is found out it can be figured out better, but I think there’s enough evidence already to say there’s some newly active criminal cum religious group here. More criminal than anything else.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/28/2019 @ 11:25 pm45. 47.
The only reason it’s ludicrous is that a lot of people outside Ukraine wanted Viktor Shokin removed as Prosecutor General because he was not pursuing cases and here Joe Biden is accused of being maybe the person most responsible for getting rid of him (and he said so) allegedly for purposes of protecting Burisma (which he didn’t say.)
What makes it less ludicrous is that Giuliani has an affidavit, never mind its correspondence with the truth:
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate
The thing is, nobody else seems to have had impression that he was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings.
So it would seem pretty basic – just get Joe Biden on record.
What Joe Biden needs to avoid, though, is being asked what he did do because he can’t say:
“I was only following Obama’s policy, and that was aimed at removing protection for Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma who denied he was the owner, and my threat took place on such and such a date and was perfectly proper. Because the only truthful thing he could say was that he made up the whole story.
As for his son, the truth there probably is, that Burisma used Hunter Biden to create the appearance in Ukraine of being protected by the U.S. government.
That was the main thing – he was also a compliant board member and possibly had contacts in Delaware with the best lawyers in the field of management retaining control of corporations.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/28/2019 @ 11:52 pmhttps://www.docdroid.net/KDaSuMo/trumpaccomplishments.pdf
mg (8cbc69) — 12/29/2019 @ 4:00 amOh My!!!
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/new_year_ahead_nothing_will_help_them.html
mg (8cbc69) — 12/29/2019 @ 4:10 amFricking awesome, Clarice.
47.
Your not comparing equal actions.
In your example, it is not within your power to violate laws in your pursuit to protect a person from rape, unless you are present and can step in. Your proper response is to call those we have delegated, that protective power.
The President of the power exercises his Article II powers. In this case, the President is working from a treaty between the United States and Ukraine to investigate corruption. The President is well within his constitutional power to actively seek that cooperation.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:50 amYou can claim the President has anterior motives. At this time no evidence exists to support that claim.
50. Clarice is not so accurate herself.
Consider this:
People die from drug overdoses, but not from smelling bad things – unless maybe they get infected and even then it has to get into the drinking water or the food supply.
Which is NOT happening in San Francisco.
By the way, that defense by Rachel Maddow that nothing specific was mentioned is one of the more specious things around. People have trouble remembering what gave them their conclusion but that doesn;t mean they’re wrong.
About her statement that someone was paid by Russia: Id’ expect some basis for that accusation, although possibly wrong – like maybe she freelanced for RT. What;s the case?
Gornisht velt helfen (nothing will help) usually means you can’t stop the party in question from being stupid.
Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:52 amNo, he really can’t seek “favors” by singling out political foes.
We all know Trump said what he said. This was completely political. He didn’t seek an investigation of corruption. He sought a favor against his political opponent, nothing more. And though the Trump talking points are always there, no matter how backwards, they are indeed backwards in this case. The prosecutor Trump claims to be defending is a Putin stooge who wouldn’t stop corruption. The theory he was going to stop this Biden corruption… at this time no evidence exists to support that claim (because it’s ridiculous).
This is why Trump was impeached. His only defense was to do all in his power to obstruct the investigation, while saying maybe he has absolute power to obstruct anything he wants, and absolute power to refuse subpoenas, and absolute power to deny aid to one of Putin’s enemies. Were this a democrat saying he had absolute power, exhibiting such open corruption, I’m sure there would be a tight group of people pounding the table insisting the opposite is the case. Partisans.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:56 amStill a great read every sunday Sammy.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:13 amAnd Trump’s proper response was to instruct the competent agencies to conduct a lawfully predicated and documented investigation. Not to send his personal consigliere to blackmail a foreign government.
I find it remarkable that when the FBI screws up a couple pages in an otherwise impeccably documented paper trail of thousands, in the course of pursuing a hostile foreign government’s known attempts to tamper with our election, it is supposedly the end of the world.
Yet here, where not even the slightest pretense was made of following ANY of the proper procedures (for instance by actually opening a legitimate investigation that would leave behind official documentation), we are told that of course there is no accountability whatsoever for trying to corruptly manipulate a foreign government into launching sham investigations of American citizens, for the sole and express purpose of ratf*cking one’s political opponent.
LOL
It was a corrupt sham to manufacture scandal and distract from the cesspool of scandals that Trump wallows in.
Any intelligent person who claims otherwise lacks even a shred of honesty.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:22 amWeird. Several of my comments appeared for a bit, then disappeared. It’s happened at least twice.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:35 amHere’s a Ukrainian view of the sketchy sources Giuliani has been using in his quest to find dirt on Biden.
Is it your position, then, that if Obama in 2016 had “exercised his Article II powers” and explicitly ordered the FBI to electronically surveil Trump and everyone connected with his presidential campaign, under the direction of his personal attorney, and in a manner that left no official documentation behind for scrutiny, on the basis of some risible pretense of suspicion of corruption, that it would have all been legal?
If the president can “exercise his Article II powers” to gin up a politically expedient, off-the-books foreign investigation of American citizens, surely he can engineer a domestic one as well.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:36 amThe treaty is self-executing, meaning that it doesn’t exempt Trump from federal law. It doesn’t give him license to commit federal crimes.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:38 amhttps://nypost.com/2019/12/28/trump-impeachment-senate-gop-reportedly-unites-behind-a-no-witness-trial/
Only Hunter Biden?
Maybe the best prediction is a short trial with no witnesses, if you assume that Nancy Pelosi is bluffing about suspending the impeachment for along time. Even to get that, Trump must be brought along and senate Republicans are arguing to him: Why not just take the acquittal?”
But Trump is running for re-election and doesn’t want the Democrats to argue he got acquitted because of pure political mathematics while the case against him is strong. He wants public opinion to be that the case against him is wrong.
It is, but he won’t come out looking good with a full exploration of the facts, and he same thing is true for Joe Biden – he didn’t do what Trump accused him of, but he won’t come out looking good with a full exploration of the facts,
The problem for the Democrats with the whistleblower is:
1) He lied under oath about ancillary issues (like contact with Congress before he filed his complaint.) This may highly embarrass the Democrats and damage any reputtion they have for honesty and lack of deviousness.
2. There are inaccuracies in the complaint – and some things that may be accurate to some degree but undermine the popular narrative (for instance you can draw from it that Zelensky had already agreed to “play ball” by the time of the July 25 call – something that is in fact borne out by the transcript of the call)
The problem here for the simple version of the accusation is: If Ukraine had already agreed then the aid couldn’t have been cut off to pressure them. Now he may imply that some people in the U.S. government were telling Ukraine not to listen to Giuliani. Problem here is that he seems to assert those people were Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker, while in reality it was Bill Taylor. (who told them Ukraine needed to maintain bipartisan support)
This does get complicated. Ukraine did know the aid was cut off in July, but their American interlocutors did not know that knew until Andrei Yermak raised the issue of the Politico article of August 28.
Why didn’t they complain? Republican counsel said it was because only the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States knew, and he didn’t inform Kiev because he was appointed by the previous government. Problem with that is that there are indications that they knew. Democratic counsel said they didn’t want Russia to know. Probldm with that explanation is that that could explain why they didn;t complain publicly but not why it wasn’t raised privately, i.e. either “Why are you doing this to us?” or OK, what do we need to do?”
.
Real reason probably was that their knowing that the aid was on hold could be interpreted as espionage on the United States, since they had never been officially informed.
Another thing: Ukraine had no idea why the aid was frozen. The Politico article implied that the Trump Administration might change its whole policy with regards to Russia and Ukraine – that </i? disturbed them.
3) Possibly deliberate inaccuracies (like saying Giuliani's main source was Lutsenkko and that Trump wanted Zelensky to retain Yuriy Lutsenko as Prosecutor General) were inserted into the whistleblower complaint that did not come from people the whistleblower talked to, but came at the suggestion of his lawyer or committee staff.. And that could also apply to things that are stated more as possibilities. They might not be his genuine best estimate.
4) The whistleblower could provide leads to other witnesses, who may have a different take on events.
Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:39 amYou mean the people Trump was screwing with were effectively unwilling to speak openly about it, because of Putin/Stalin style politics.
Obviously they knew what was going on as Trump told them quite plainly this was about helping him get dirt on a specific political opponent.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:46 amDave (1bb933) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:36 am
It really depends on whether it is risible or not, and real or not.
The articles of Impeachment claim that Trump didn’t want a real investigation – he just wanted an announcement of one. (that’s actually what Gordon Sondland wanted in the first week of September 2019, and he wanted it to unfreeze the aid. He hoped it would work.
Now this sounds a lot like Harry Reid on October 30, 2016.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Harry_Reid_Letter_to_James_Comey_%28October_30,_2016%29
Harry Reid told Comey that he would be violating the Hatch Act if he didn’t announce it because he had announced an investigation into Hillary Clinton – which he had because he had announced back on July he was closing one but said if it was re-opened he would reveal it) Hillary of course had wanted that announcement made back in July.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had earlier exercised his Article I powers (influence over appropriations to push the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign back in August 2016:
https://archive.org/stream/ReidLetterToComey08272016/2016-08-27–Reid%20Letter%20to%20Comey_djvu.txt
Sammy Finkelman (70818b) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:05 amDustin #33: That case is hardly on point with whether a President may invoke executive privilege. The 2nd impeachment article is about the House not getting witnesses where the President invoked that privilege. In the past these cases have been justicable on a case-by-case basis (e.g. the Watergate tape subpoenas). The House in this case was in too much of a hurry to wait for the courts.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:23 amI believe they actually specifically talked about the president having to comply with a subpoena and testify. (#40)
So the F what?! That has nothing to do with executive privilege. Not only was it a subpoena involving a personal action against the President as an individual, but the tort occurred prior to his election as President.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:27 amI was listening to talk radio and Harvey Levin from TMZ was filling in on KFI and was really drilling down on a caller about whether Trump’s claim of rooting out corruption passed the smell test. Levin thought Trump’s claim was simply ludicrous and Levin was nice, but he really pinned the caller into a corner and left him there sobbing.
I disagreed somewhat because I actually believe that having the sitting VP pimping his derelict son out to foreign parties is moderately bad for the country. Untoward at best and since people generally want something when they pay you $1,000,000 a year it put the appearance that office of the VP and access to the President could be bought for a $1,000,000
Without the focus on him now, what would Biden have done if he became President? became a fair question to ask.
Biden left himself out on an island by helping his son (I don’t believe he didn’t know) and Trump cut him off. Biden ‘s hubris left him dangling and gave Trump the thinnest of cover for his attack and it was all Trump needed.
Here’s what I think about Trumps motivations: Its the Church Lady from SNL “Well, isn’t that convenient”
steveg (354706) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:29 amhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrAf-O_L-08
So next time I get a speeding ticket, my defense will be that I was rushing to prevent Donald Trump from committing a rape.
Feel free. I’m not sure that you can subpoena people in a speeding ticket case, but you are of course entitled to call any witness you want, subject to the court’s patience.
In this case a subpoena, backed by a Senate vote, is legally enforceable. That some consider it a waste of time, or a furtherance of a lousy argument is immaterial. The defense is entitled to bring such arguments as seems helpful to their case.
Biden’s refusal is no more innocent that Trump’s use of the subpoena.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:33 am>>The President is well within his constitutional power to actively seek that cooperation.
No, he really can’t seek “favors” by singling out political foes.
And here I agree with Dustin, and the 1st article of impeachment is not dismissable on its face. BUt I may disagree on two points:
1) That in and of itself, the actions charged, if proved, are sufficient to remove a President from office. That was the real question in the Clinton case; not whether he committed perjury or obstruction — he clearly did at least some of that — but whether he should be removed as a result. The vote is not simply on the charges, it is simultaneously on the penalty. And THAT part of the vote is entirely political.
2) That it is certain what Trump’s motivations were in his call, and what the actual facts of the situation wrt the Bidens and Ukraine were that led to that request of Ukraine.
I think that Dustin is at “Guilty, guilty, guilty” where some of us are less certain of the facts, having only heard spin so far.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:41 amAnother thing: Ukraine had no idea why the aid was frozen.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:46 am
No, the really had no idea. Nobody had any idea, except possily Mulvaney and Bolton. And I think the reason had nothing to do with investigations, but had to do with Trump thinking there were bad people associated with the Ukrainian government, the same bad people, he was told, who had tried to take him down in 2016 and had been associated with Marie Yovanovich, the ambassador who Pompeo removed and recalled before Trump could attempt to fire her.
That is manifestly not the case. Trump wanted to check out specific allegations, and while he was incoherent about 2016, he did describe the allegation in the case of Biden. It was that Joe Biden had caused the firing of a prosecutor to stop an investigation that would have impacted his son Hunter in some way, and had boasted about in a recorded speech.
That was wrongheaded in several ways, and the problem for Ukraine was telling Donald Trump he was wrong. Zelensky talked about investigating the company.
Helping him get “dirt” would mean a witch hunt or a fishing expedition. There is not the slightest evidence of anything like that. What you are referring to is Adam Schiff’s misrepresentation.
Sammy Finkelman (3015b5) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:47 amBasically the entire impeachment charge comes down to “Trump is a petty man, and uses his power to petty purposes.” The outrage is not about how he twisted a foreign leaders arm — Presidents do that ALL the time, and should — but the utter pettiness of his reasons.
If we are to impeach a President due to his (many) character defects and argue his unsuitability for office, despite the electorate having been aware of that when they voted for him, fine. Do that. It would make a much better case.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:49 amAgain, if Trump can show a reasonable argument that his call to Ukraine was within bounds, then the entire indictment collapses. It is not a noble act when the people who he charges with the actual wrongdoing to refuse to testify. They are free to take the 5th Amendment, of course.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:53 amThe Democrats went on a fishing trip for obstruction.
They started with Sessions, moved to Comey, then Mueller and now executive privilege after figuring out the first three were dry holes.
A client can ask lawyers about things that he can’t legally do… he is asking their advice as people who know the laws, because he doesn’t. The client may persist by asking what about this? What if we do that? The client can order an attorney to do something and the attorney might say no I won’t do that because it would be obstruction or no, if you do that it will be obstruction.
To my ear, Trump sounds like a guy in an obstruction minefield who knows nothing about what criminal obstruction is.
I believe that is why Mueller could not find criminal intent. The FBI and prosecutors know obstruction in and out but they punted to Congress where the standards are politicized.
If Trump was in private life he could shut up, say and do nothing and let the lawyers handle it. He’s not. He wanted to be President and wasn’t ready for it on the legal side.
steveg (354706) — 12/29/2019 @ 11:01 amI really disliked Comey, even more, when I heard him pontificate about how they had gotten to Flynn, but that is really on Trump because he didn’t see the “Lawfare” coming his way
The “favors” that Trump wanted from Ukraine were for it:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
And at the end he said:
This was not a hint to make up stuff. The “get to the bottom of it” refers to 2016 and “good luck with everything refers to the Biden allegation as well. That was very clearly a secondary matter with Trump, although the House Intelligence Committee Chairman and the whistleblower complaint reversed the order and oriority.
Sammy Finkelman (3015b5) — 12/29/2019 @ 11:03 amMairav Zonszein מרב זונשיין
@MairavZ
·
Just to be clear, I hold the Trump White House directly responsible for the increasing violent attacks on Orthodox Jewish people in America. It should be clear now that exceptionalizing Jews- whether in a negative or positive light- endangers us and keeps us forever at risk
__ _
Integralist Kanye
@Stonewall_State
·
Siri show me “Trump Derangement Syndrome”
__ _
RussiaGate Was 100% Fake SpyGate Is 100% Real
@drawandstrike
·
You are asserting that Trump has MORE influence over the people committing these violent assaults on Orthodox Jews in the NYC area than, let’s say…Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton?
These black perpetrators are being inspired by TRUMP?
Are you **really** sure of that? 🤔
__ _
InTheRightColumn
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/29/2019 @ 11:10 am@TheRightColumn
·
I’m sure he yelled, “This is MAGA country!” right before attacking, too.
_
Trump was actually puzzled by the idea that Joe Biden had openly revealed he’d stopped an investigation. (Biden didn’t say he’s stopped a prosecution since the idea that Viktor Shokin was a real threat to the company Hunter Biden was associated with is spin and false information given to Giuliani by his Ukraianian informants.
Here is Trump on September 25, the day he released the transcript of the July 25 call:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-zelensky-ukraine-bilateral-meeting-new-york-ny
No, it’s that Donald Trump has his facts wrong, and doesn’t listen to what is actually on the recording.
For what Joe Biden said on January 23, 2018 in the Q&A period of his presentation before the Council on Foreign Relations was:
https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden
Now that story with the threatened or actual cancellation of his participation in a press conference is almost certainly not true, which is why Joe Biden doesn’t want to testify, and why the Ukraianian slanderers picked that out, but in the story, Joe Biden does not say he caused the firing of a prosecutor to stop an investigation.
The Ukrainian slanderers were I think probably working on behalf of Russia.
Sammy Finkelman (3015b5) — 12/29/2019 @ 11:24 amGiuliani at least understood that Joe Biden does not say he caused the firing of a prosecutor to stop an investigation. He claimed he hid that from his audience. somebody else probably gave Donald Trump that spin – a background fact that was wrong.
Sammy Finkelman (3015b5) — 12/29/2019 @ 11:27 amThe Partyman
@PartymanRandy
·
It’s looking like the Hanukkah machete attack will end up being a slightly bigger story than the kosher grocery store massacre.
But not nearly as big a story as when a couple West Point cadets made circles with their fingers.
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/29/2019 @ 12:34 pm_
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/simpsons-30-times-fox-comedy-successfully-predicted-future-1140775
“We’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump.”
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/29/2019 @ 12:37 pm@harkin @73 Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton have been around for some time and target an older generation and Sharpton is not encouraging hatred now. I think this is somebody new and, at the moment, obscure. I don’t think it is isolated. There have been a bunch of smaller assaults
https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/thomas-grafton/
Thirty seven years old, the suspect previously lived in Brooklyn. He has no known social media accounts but seems to be connected to a woman in her 50s with a Faceook page who has worked as anurse.. No criminal record except a driving offense (for which he was probably arrested) but he did have an arrest during the summmer for menacing and reckless endangerment – the charges were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal if he stayed out of trouble. he has either two or several arrests or charges. One for puncutring a police horse
He lives either with his father or with his mother (confusion here) There is confusion about his name too.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/29/2019 @ 12:56 pmSammy, you have twisted yourself into a knot 500 ways but the plain facts, devoid of the noise and the spin and the bluster and the bloviating, speak for themselves.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:00 pmLink from Jonah Goldberg:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katherinemiller/the-2010s-have-broken-our-sense-of-time
???
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:01 pm@79 (On the trump stuff, not the antisemetic attack stuff.)
Nic (896fdf) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:02 pmI wanted to post thsi a week ago and more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/world/middleeast/syria-medical-criminalization.html
(Syria declares war on the Hippocratic oath)
I think they got the idea from Saudi arabia though.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:03 pm79. Nic (896fdf) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:00 pm
The simple explanation is provably wrong.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler
Here is why Trump withheld the aid:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
Trump doesn’t say more, and presumably wants Giuliani to brief Zelensky or his people on who are the bad people in Ukraine. (the only problem is Giuliani already had)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:11 pm#74: It doesn’t matter what the real truth of the matter was, just what Trump believed it was. It would help a lot if he was right, of course, and it will hurt a lot if he told people he was going to “get Biden.”
I will matter a lot when the trial testimony happens. Not only will the Bidens have to testify, if called, but so will Trump’s people. I’d hate to be the
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:14 pmattorneymouthpiece trying to defend “Executive Privilege” in an impeachment trial.*IT will matter a lot….
I probably won’t matter much.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:15 pm@83 The crowdstrike ask, even if he believed that trash rumors, is still a personal favor for personal benefit ask and is still only half the ask. He still isn’t going through proper channels to request an investigation and he is still using extortion for self-benefit.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/29/2019 @ 1:33 pm59. No crime. Stop lying that a crime exists. The House Impeachment lynch mob, failed at finding a crime.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/29/2019 @ 2:54 pmhttps://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/belgian-malinois-has-mad-skillz/
mg (8cbc69) — 12/29/2019 @ 3:15 pmif you love dogs woof woof
56. I find it remarkable that when the FBI screws up a couple pages in an otherwise impeccably documented paper trail of thousands, in the course of pursuing a hostile foreign government’s known attempts to tamper with our election, it is supposedly the end of the world.
You have no intention of debating in good faith. If you spin-off, altering of warrant information as sloppy, that’s an intentional lie.
Your other post about your hypothetical, of Obama ordering surveillance of the Trump campaign, is no hypothetical, facts publicly available show it to be factually accurate.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/29/2019 @ 3:19 pm86.He still isn’t going through proper channels to request an investigation and he is still using extortion for self-benefit.
The President of the United States determines “proper” channels. Not, some dopey Lt Colonel that believes he sets foreign policy, not the President.
Extortion is a crime. A crime with defined elements. Yet, somehow the smartest lawyers in the US, those working with the House on articles of impeachment, failed to include extortion in those articles. Or maybe you’re just tossing around big words you don’t understand?
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/29/2019 @ 3:27 pmWe have a Constitution and a set of laws that set out “proper channels.” The president does not have carte blanche to do whatever he wants, and I can’t imagine that any defender of Trump would have typed that first sentence while Obama was president.
I also can’t imagine any Trump defender thinking it would have been okay for a Democratic president to leave the State Department confused as to what his “foreign policy” actually is, and in the dark about why funding allocated by Congress is being blocked, while the president’s personal lawyer goes around doing shadow foreign policy but then says it isn’t really “foreign policy” but merely client service when he’s caught, while Trump defenders insist that’s all in the national interest etc.
It’s also pretty funny to see someone describing other people as “dopey” while defending the most cognitively impaired president in anyone’s memory.
Radegunda (39c35f) — 12/29/2019 @ 3:56 pm“Obama ordering surveillance of the Trump campaign, is no hypothetical, facts publicly available show it to be factually accurate.’
What fact shows Obama ordering it?
Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/29/2019 @ 4:07 pmI find it remarkable that when the FBI screws up a couple pages in an otherwise impeccably documented paper trail of thousands, in the course of pursuing a hostile foreign government’s known attempts to tamper with our election, it is supposedly the end of the world.
Well the Article III judges who review that supposedly minor “screw up” did not think it a small matter at all. Why don’t you review their order, it is 3 1/2 single-spaced pages:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6600-fisa-court-demands-answers-fro/87f1132ddc399b0c99b1/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
Here is a key couple of sentences:
IF you do not appreciate how serious this misconduct is, then you are either wildly partisan or deaf, dumb and blind. FISA itself is already problematic (a secret court, accepting ex parte applications to bless spying); misleading that court is putting the FBI’s credibility on the line.
Bored Lawyer (56c962) — 12/29/2019 @ 4:23 pm@90 Nice country you have there. Too bad if we let something happen to it.
They didn’t include extortion in the articles of impeachment. However, as a thinking person, I am able to look at a fact pattern and determine what I think has happened. OJ murdered his ex even thought he was never criminally convicted of it.
You are spending an awful lot of time insulting people. How’s that distraction technique working for you?
Nic (896fdf) — 12/29/2019 @ 5:08 pm“ I find it remarkable that when the FBI screws up a couple pages in an otherwise impeccably documented paper trail of thousands…….”
lol
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/29/2019 @ 6:24 pm_
A couple headlines from this week that I will just leave here:
Transgender man gives birth to non-binary partner’s baby with female sperm donor
Bodybuilder set to marry his sex robot girlfriend ‘despite frequent arguments’
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/29/2019 @ 6:31 pm_
Transgender man gives birth to non-binary partner’s baby with female sperm donor
let me see…woman pretending to be a man gives birth to a baby conceived with sperm donated by a man pretending to be a woman….the non-binary partner seems to be a null term in this equation.
Bodybuilder set to marry his sex robot girlfriend ‘despite frequent arguments’
Compared to the first headline, that seems so normal it restores my faith in humanity.
Kishnevi (5ca3cd) — 12/29/2019 @ 6:39 pmI probably won’t matter much.
You matter a great deal to us, Mr M.
Kishnevi (5ca3cd) — 12/29/2019 @ 6:41 pmTransgender man gives birth to non-binary partner’s baby with female sperm donor
Bodybuilder set to marry his sex robot girlfriend ‘despite frequent arguments’
Donald Trump Elected President Of The United States
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 7:19 pmThe Gelded Age: A History Of The Early 21st Century
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 7:24 pm@96 Stop reading tabloids or you’ll start believing Elvis is living in North Dakota, imprisoned by an ex nuclear scientist.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/29/2019 @ 7:37 pm“ and argue his unsuitability for office, despite the electorate having been aware of [those] when they voted for him, fine. Do that..”
– Kevin M
That is, in fact, what is being done – or did you not understand the euphemisms? I know you did.
Stop pretending to not understand what is going on. You know damn well what is going on. Take an actual position as to what is going on, and stop school-marming us about it. You insist on having this both ways, but you cannot.
Leviticus (7fcc89) — 12/29/2019 @ 7:39 pm91. We have a Constitution and a set of laws that set out “proper channels.”
Big talk. Well, except you failed to, you know, cite that portion of the constitution that restricts the Presidents actions in dealing with a foreign relations.
You also failed to cite these “laws” that congress passed, AND the President signed, that limits the executive branches power in setting foriegn policy.
So you are all over “it”, as long as we ignore the lack of facts to support your assertions.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/29/2019 @ 7:50 pmThere’s a couple of shelves full of books labelled USC and CFR…they limit what POTUS can and can not do.
And I am sure you think there are some limits on what POTUS can do in foreign affairs. Otherwise he could tweet out “just gave my good friend Kim permission to test his latest missile on Portland. Full of Antifa Democrats, so it’s not like anyone really cares about Portland.”
Kishnevi (5ca3cd) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:01 pm“ Stop reading tabloids or you’ll start believing Elvis is living in North Dakota, imprisoned by an ex nuclear scientist.”
The ‘bat boy’ has him at Area 51, everyone knows that.
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:03 pmIf a tabloid can define
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:05 pm“A woman pretending to be a man gives birth to a baby conceived with sperm donated by a man pretending to be a woman….the non-binary partner seems to be a null term in this equation”[Thank you, Kishnevi]
As
“Transgender man gives birth to non-binary partner’s baby with female sperm donor”
Then
Why can’t poor Mr. President Trump call his attempted drug deal with Zelensky a “perfect call”?
And
Why, illustrating the most controversial aspect of The Bell, should it be a surprise that a certain demographic believes it?
*The Bell Curve*
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:06 pmOr The Bell Jar, for that matter.
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:07 pm97 – “ let me see…woman pretending to be a man gives birth to a baby conceived with sperm donated by a man pretending to be a woman….the non-binary partner seems to be a null term in this equation.”
_
You’re on the same wavelength as Mrs McAfee:
Janice McAfee
@theemrsmcafee
·
I got you… a woman pretending to be a man gives birth, with sperm from a man pretending to be a woman, while living with a partner that pretends to be neither.
Hope that clears things up for you.😉
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:07 pm_
But is it Elvis’s Alien Clone Baby?
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:10 pmIn fact, not being completely up to date in my terminology, the term “non binary partner” was a bit confusing. One might say that since it was non binary, it did not compute.
Kishnevi (5ca3cd) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:13 pmSwitch hitter.
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:15 pmMore like
Kishnevi (5ca3cd) — 12/29/2019 @ 8:36 pmChronic bunter.
Nobody wants to talk about the orange retweeting the outing of the whistleblower as a third Article of Impeachment? Sophia @Surfermom77 is protected by the Pentagon Papers Case, but government officials are not. For those who want a statutory crime, involving governmental misconduct, here’s one right here.
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:00 pmbut but but Trump has absolute article 2 power to determine who is a real whistleblower so of course and clearly no crime no crime. Besides, ‘member that thing the democrats did?
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:05 pmI can’t tell if you’re joking anymore.
A partisan operative that coordinated with the party trying to overturn the 2016 election who everyone knows is still a “secret whistleblower?” Food for thought.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:32 pmI’m serious, and I suggest that the whistleblower’s identity is more confidential than Trump’s tax returns who “everyone knows” is a self-made billionaire with over 500 subsidiary businesses.
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:56 pmorange man bad sure rattles the squirrels cage
mg (8cbc69) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:07 pm”Nobody wants to talk about the orange retweeting the outing of the whistleblower as a third Article of Impeachment?”
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 9:00 pm
You don’t know the person named is the (non)whistleblower. An article of impeachment would confirm the identity and actually out him.
Otherwise, all the ridiculous contortions the media is going through to justify not publishing his name would be baseless. So, which nonsense are we going with?
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:18 pmAh, yes, the blackmailers’ standby: “If you go to the police, the whole world will know.” It won’t work here. Lemmee splain why.
There is conspiracy and attempt. Breaking into the city morgue thinking that it’s a bank is still attempted bank robbery which is a crime. Just like the Ukrainian drug deal gone bad. The orange didn’t get the dirt he wanted on Biden there either.
nk (dbc370) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:25 pmJohn lewis a grate american.
asset (97695a) — 12/29/2019 @ 10:30 pmRight after the election can’t wait for Trump to pardon Flynn, Stone and Manafort. We will need the cell space for Obama, Clinton and Comey.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/30/2019 @ 2:54 amI’ll take that as a personal attack, iowan. Don’t be an a$$hole.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/30/2019 @ 3:11 amFederal crimes were committed by Donald J. Trump, and that just’s on Ukraine.
It was a mistake for Vice President Biden to refuse to testify before the Senate trial a month ahead. It could be a moment to shine right before the Iowa Caucuses if he needed it. And he hasn’t aided the Democrats’ legitimacy by adding himself to the list of those refusing to testify.
Speaking of those Administration officials who won’t comply. The Senate is run by a Republican majority. There is no excuse for them or Republican Senators to keep everyone in the dark. Are they afraid that Mitch McConnell might actually allow questioning of a witness with firsthand knowledge?
Or is it now their position…. “Hearsay. We want only hearsay.”?
noel (f22371) — 12/30/2019 @ 3:46 am123. Those 8 crimes?
Campaign finance? Nope lacks elements that define the crime. We already have a DoJ ruling, speciically for this phone call. Fail.
Missing documents and witnesses. Its called executive privilege. Congress has not attempted to enforce their subpoenas. Judicial review is something available to all citizens, even the President of the United States.
The Impoundment act?
The President paused delivery of the aid. Fact. The President was well within his powers, nay, required to assure anti corruption programs were in place and functioning. Yes US agencies had cleared that portion. That does not preclude the President from pausing the aid to double check. It is within his power. The aid was delivered within the legal parameters required by the statute.
The problem you have with claiming all of these actions meet the standard for a crime, so warrant an impeachment, all Presidents then will be guilty of exactly the same things. Democrats understand. Lower the standard enough to justify going after Orangeman, exposes any person sitting in the Oval office.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/30/2019 @ 5:14 amIn short, stop claiming a crime has been committed, long after the investigation, has failed to find evidence, elements of that crime exist. Just Stop.
A DOJ ruling is irrelevant, iowan, especially with this lapdog AG. The place to adjudicate this president’s crimes is in the House and Senate, not by the president’s appointee. This is why we have impeachment in the Constitution, because our founders were smart enough to know that a subordinate cannot indict his boss. It takes another branch of government.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/30/2019 @ 6:30 amThe case has been made. There is enough documentary and testamentary evidence, along with Trump’s and Mulvaney’s own words, to prove that Trump enlisted a foreign power to rig an American election in his favor, and that Trump withheld military aid to secure that foreign power’s cooperation. It’s not only illegal, it’s unpatriotic and un-American.
The problem with Trump’s violation of the Impoundment Act is that he didn’t notify Congress under law. If he honestly had issues, there were ways to deal with it legally instead of using the aid as a bargaining chip.
Oh, and you can’t order me “stop claiming a crime has been committed”, and I won’t do it, especially from people like you who resort to personal attacks. This president is a felon, a federal criminal, multiple times over.
Iowan2,
I give you credit for honestly explaining the situation and properly portraying what is happening in this case. Don’t bother debating people who will continue to dishonestly try and frame the discussion and claim assertion as fact. You have been here long enough to know who is trying to discuss the case and who is purely asserting their own agenda.
In other news, Jews and Christians keep getting attacked, but not a peep from their representatives.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/30/2019 @ 7:30 amI’m not surprised that a person like NJ would join iowan in personal attacks. He’s done it before.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/30/2019 @ 7:45 amI’m not surprised that a person like NJ would join iowan in personal attacks. He’s done it before.
This sort of reasoning seems rather popular here. Rightly or wrongly, people have a right to say that a comment is irrational or dishonest or, well, even stupid. It’s quite often done in the OP before discussion even has a chance to get heated. When a commenter (commentor?) repeatedly comments in such a manner, to say ‘consider the source’, or something more concise, is not necessarily an ad hominem nor a personal attack (there is a difference). Again, rightly or wrongly. And people have a right to be wrong. It’s what open and honest discussion is about. Heck, to wrongly accuse someone of making personal attacks is itself a personal attack.
PTw (894877) — 12/30/2019 @ 7:58 amAttorney General opinions are binding, on the government, prospectively. If the Attorney General signs a letter that it’s legal to whistle Dixie while strolling past the Mormon Tabernacle on a sunny day in lederhosen and an aloha shirt, then the government cannot prosecuted you for whistling Dixie while strolling past the Mormon Tabernacle on a sunny day in lederhosen and an aloha shirt.
Retrospectively, they are only an analysis of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion; which discretion is furhter colored both by the pre-existing DOJ policy of not prosecuting sitting Presidents and Barr being Trump’s handmaiden.
nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:00 amTell me how “stop lying” is not a personal attack, or “dishonestly try and frame the discussion”. You’re on the wrong side of this issue, PT.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:06 amTell me how “stop lying” is not a personal attack, or “dishonestly try and frame the discussion”. You’re on the wrong side of this issue, PT.
Show me where NJRob, the person whom you conflate with Iowan2, told you to “stop lying”. This is silly. My point is this constant crying about ‘personal attacks’ and ‘ad hominem’ and such comes across as a cheap attempt to derail the general discussion and play the victim card. It’s so wimpy. Note, not saying that you are a wimp. You’re just being wimpy. In that context.
Look, if someone says you are lying then man up and defend your statement. And if he said you were a liar in general, defend yourself. But don’t cry about it. It’s not healthy.
PTw (894877) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:18 amImpeachment is political. It just is. The one that came the closest to actually removing the President was caused by the President violating a likely unconstitutional law that deserved the treatment it got.
So, I find the discussion on whether the President violated some law or other by withholding aid from the Ukraine to induce the President of Ukraine to announce an investigation against his likely political opponent beside the point. The better question is whether the action was egregiously improper, and whether Trump was using his foreign policy powers in an improper fashion to influence the 2020 election. A second question is whether this action, if improper, merits removal.
I find these questions cut to the chase, and do not result in the acrimonious debate we have on this thread.
Gerald Ford said one thing worth quoting and this is it. “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history. Conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.”
The rest is based on whether you feel like Trump’s action was disgraceful, disgusting, or “I’ve seen worse stuff om House of cards”.
By the way, I would impeach and remove. The Senate does not agree, and no amount of facts is going to make them.
Appalled (1a17de) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:20 amPaul,
you’ve attacked me and called me names on here repeatedly. Do you want me to link the attacks? You refuse to apologize and break the rules time and time again.
Go on.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:23 amI didn’t conflate, I quoted each, and there are rules here.
That’s not how it works. If you say I’m lying, or if you make any assertion, then it’s on you back it up, PT.
Not in this thread, NJ, and I bring it up here because you’re piling on, which is a cheap thing to do. And I guess you’re just unaware of your previous personal attacks against me on this site, so your whining falls on deaf ears.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:36 amLet’s change the subject to something more pleasant: If the Senate votes remove (20 votes, just 20 little votes), it’s done right then and there. Trump is no longer and Pence “acts as President” even before the Chief Justice swears him in as President.
What does this mean besides the Secret Service escorting him and his family out of the White House to make room for the new President and his family? Pardon Power All Gone! Trump cannot pardon himself or his confederates and not being the President any more can now be prosecuted! Isn’t that a wonderful thought?
nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:16 amvotes *to* remove
nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:21 amis no longer *President*
Nk,
it’s a fantasy. If you want to watch a movie or read a book go ahead. But it’s not plausible in the real world.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:21 amSo I won’t quote your remarks then Paul. I’m not piling on anything. I’m stating my opinion and responding to another commenter.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:23 am133. Thank you. That is one of the most succinct analyses I think I’ve ever seen on this subject matter.
Gryph (08c844) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:25 amI “know” that, and you “know” that, NJRob, but does Trump “know” that, or why is he going wild on Twitter? “Crazy Nancy”? “America’s top cop is scum”? Seriously?
nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:30 amhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=J67MMTqcyAo&feature=emb_logo
Thank God the parishioners were armed and able to defend themselves rather than just be victims to this monster.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:32 amNk,
I don’t pay attention to his twitter feed so I don’t know. I’m guess it’s just to control the news and get the media to play ball by focusing on his remarks instead of anything else. If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that he loves attention to the point of narcissism.
Twitter is a cesspool.
NJRob (4d595c) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:34 amI am having a hard time reconciling these two statements, Appalled:
and
It seems Ford thought impeachment is entirely political but the first sentence requires some kind of improper conduct, although it may not rise to the level of a crime. I think the first sentence is right in theory but Ford was viewing it pragmatically.
Raul (d18ca6) — 12/30/2019 @ 11:17 am@133. Good weather report. The problem w/managing Trump always comes back to the same thing: discipline. If Dead Daddy Fred, military school profs, several wives and mistresses, a few NYC mayors, network TeeVee execs, Wall Street bankers and even Merv Griffin couldn’t reign him in– the pipsqueaks in Congress certainly won’t.
Congress blew any chance of that when they failed to assert authority by establishing guard rails w/this guy and smacking him across the snout through initiating censure proceedings the day after Helsinki. Now it’s too late and he’ll keep soiling the carpet just as he has his whole life. “Impeachment” – partial or full- may sting for a while but won’t hurt for long in this 24/7 media cycle age. W/a strong economy, he’ll be re-elected.
The country sees this for what it is– the cries of ‘urgency’ evaporated fast now that Nancy is making a political play w/her ‘Big Stall.’ She who hesitates has lost. The Beltway crowd and television punditry may be salivating over a Senate show trial but in the end, all these major parties have done is cheapen the cache of impeachment even more by weaponizing it further [thank you, imbecile Newtie!] Busy Americans are moving on from it PDQ- putting it in the rearview mirror along with the holidays– and 2019.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/30/2019 @ 11:59 am@144. Ford was right. You could comb though every presidency and create some pretense for ‘impeachment’ proceedings- if you can get the votes. Hell, Nixon liked to mix cottage cheese with ketchup; tapes be damned– that alone merited an article of impeachment!
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/30/2019 @ 12:13 pmPragmatism is designed to be efficient, effective, economical and provides the greatest good to the greatest number of people. But “the greatest good” is based on opinion and it ignores the concerns of the minority.
Raul (d18ca6) — 12/30/2019 @ 12:26 pmPaul,
They get personal because they have no alternative. I used to bother trying to placate but Trump supporters understand he is evil. They are a reminder for future generations of what can happen when people worship politicians.
NK, that is indeed a pleasant thought.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/30/2019 @ 1:03 pmNJRob (4d595c) — 12/30/2019 @ 10:32 am
felipe (023cc9) — 12/30/2019 @ 1:48 pmThank you for that link, NJRob. Is this incident being covered by the MSM?
@149 The link appears to be to CBS evening news’ youtube. CBS news is as MSM as it gets.
Nic (896fdf) — 12/30/2019 @ 1:56 pm126. This president is a felon, a federal criminal, multiple times over.
Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/30/2019 @ 6:30 am
See? That’s three lies in one sentence. The poster is a liar by these three examples
AND, again…if all of these were (we’ll dismiss the ‘crime’ label, but its the left that insists on comparing this to a criminal proceeding) enough to impeach President Donald J Trump. House lawyers would have all of these eight articles, in the articles of impeachment. They don’t have any of them, except obstruction of Congress. Something lots of previous Presidents have done, seeking judicial review.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/30/2019 @ 2:32 pmPaul 123 provided a link that argues Trump has committed crimes and explains which ones and why. It is not a lie to believe Trump has committed crimes.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/30/2019 @ 2:37 pm126. A DOJ ruling is irrelevant, iowan, especially with this lapdog AG.
Yet another leftist defiling the Rule of Law. Not that I’m surprised. The Dept of Justice opinions carry the weight of law, until court rulings or statutes say other wise.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/30/2019 @ 2:41 pm152. Paul labeled President Trump a felon. That is a lie. Arguing a person committed a crime does not make them a criminal. We are all innocent, until proven guilty.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/30/2019 @ 2:51 pmThis thread is a court of public opinion, not law, iowan. I’ve seen enough evidence to conclude Trump is a multi-offending criminal. That’s not a lie, it’s a well-researched and supported opinion.
Paul Montagu (f34b5a) — 12/30/2019 @ 3:07 pmBecause of OLC guidelines, it is just a fact that the DOJ cannot make a legal ruling on a president’s criminal acts or indict a sitting president. It’s why they pass it off to a Special Counsel.
Words have meaning. Your opinion, no matter how highly you think of yourself, is not fact.
From Blacks Law Dictionary
CRIMINAL,
One who has committed a criminal offense; one who has been legally convicted of a crime; one adjudged guilty of crime. Molineux v. Collins. 177 N. Y. 395. 09 N. E. 727, 65 L. R. A. 104.
Until you get a ruling from a judge. President Trump’s phone call has nothing to do with Campaign Finance law. That is the Ruling from the Department of Justice.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/30/2019 @ 3:25 pmNic (896fdf) — 12/30/2019 @ 1:56 pm
Heh! True.
felipe (023cc9) — 12/30/2019 @ 4:29 pmWe’re presumed innocent by the courts, but we’re not all innocent. Some people are, in fact, in reality, guilty.
Trump is guilty of sexual assault, for example. He bragged about sexually assaulting a lot of women. It’s just a plain plum fact that Trump is a felon. Calling someone a liar for quoting Trump is a really Trumpy way of defending him.
Let’s just be honest. Trump is a terrible man and it’s hilarious that he’s been impeached. I am really happy about it.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/30/2019 @ 4:39 pmImpeachment is a political act, Donald Trump has been impeached. For illustrative purposes, two of the articles of impeachment for one of the other two presidents to be impeached, both mild in comparison to what this moron has done and how he has behaved. He’s unfit for office, not just because he’s an unindicted co-conspirator to someone in prison for the crimes committed in conjunction with Trump, the 10 counts of obstruction of justice previously defined, neither of which the DOJ is going to prosecute him for while in office. He’s mentally unfit, morally unfit, just unfit.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (48e13d) — 12/30/2019 @ 4:54 pmDCSCA,
Off-topic: Yes, good guys with guns can save lives. They just did in the [Texas] West Freeway Church of Christ.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/30/2019 @ 5:05 pmcriminal is:
I agree it is good to be precise in what we say. Does it bother you that Trump is not precise in his speech, iowan2?
DRJ (15874d) — 12/30/2019 @ 5:10 pmI agree it is good to be precise in what we say. Does it bother you that Trump is not precise in his speech, iowan2?
A happy and purposeful life is about managing expectations. I have low expectations of politicians.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/30/2019 @ 5:22 pmDoes it bother you politicians are rarely precise?
https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1211444373143064577
Supporting Biden would have consequences.
NJRob (cc1a3b) — 12/30/2019 @ 5:24 pmAt this point in his life I think Trump is incapable of being or becoming precise in his speech.
steveg (354706) — 12/30/2019 @ 5:27 pmI suppose he could practice for untold hours for the rest of his days and make some progress, but whats the payoff in that?
158. He bragged about sexually assaulting a lot of women
I think I know the quote you reference…but do you? I think not. Because the quote does not have the meaning you wish it did.
So, pony up some facts to support your wild accusations.
iowan2 (9c8856) — 12/30/2019 @ 5:33 pm126. Paul Montagu (280314) — 12/30/2019 @ 6:30 am
It never got to the point of breaking the law.
(although you could make that alone grounds for impeachment – in fact one person I was speaking to over the weekend must have misunderstood something I said and thought the “obstruction of Congress” count was the secret hold on the military aid. Nothing as sensible sounding as that was passed by the House of Representatives.)
Trump rescinded his hold before time ran out, and short holds can be done, although 12% of the military aid did not manage to get out the door in time and had to be re-appropriated.
The State Department aid withheld was not such a big problem because the final steps to approve it – no problem with corruption – had to be certified or something so all Mulvaney had to do was prevent Congress from being notified.
But the Pentagon had already told Congress that Ukraine met the requirements set by Congress for addressing corruption and that meant therefore that the $250 million in military aid was good to go.
Mark Sandy, the career official involved in implementing the hold, got concerned about the Impoundment Control act because he wasn’t told how long the hold would last and contacted Pentagon lawyers. He did get the go-ahead from the budget office’s lawyers and ordered a “brief pause” His authority over this was removed. The White House began issuing new short freezes every few days.
Eventually lawyers came up with the idea that Trump could freeze the aid if he determined that, based on existing circumstances, releasing the money would undermine military or diplomatic efforts. But John Bolton opposed that because he didn’t think it was true.
Oh, he had issues, but they apparently were based on what he was getting, or had gotten, from Rudy Giuliani, or maybe some other confidential source (let’s hope it wasn’t coming from, or being amplified, by Vladimir Putin personally! * ) and he didn’t seem to want to tell anyone in his administration what it was or what it was based on.
I wouldn’t say the problem was that he wasn’t dealing with it legally the problem was that he wasn’t dealing with it forthrightly.
It was not intended by him as a bargaining chip. That’s what some of the people in the government thought it was. But Gordon Sondland, who was trying to negotiate a quid pro quo, never heard that from Donald Trump or anybody. And Donald Trump denied it when asked. There’s not the slightest confirmation that he intended it as a bargaining chip, and to say so you have to assume some secret communication with Giuliani or Sondland.
The whole thing maybe more sense that way, but it doesn’t fit the evidence.
* Putin (that sis, the Russian government) was a little bit anxious, after Trump released the July 25 Zelensky call, that Trump not release transcripts of his telephone calls with him. You can wonder what Putin thought the relevancy of that might be. Only promises of peace if the U.S. didn’t arm Ukraine more?
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 6:16 pm@160. It’s nothing to be proud of. Welcome to 1870; gun play in church.
Jesus wept.
.. and Putin smiled.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/30/2019 @ 6:23 pmR.I.P. Sue Lyon, star of the original “Lolita”
Icy (6abb50) — 12/30/2019 @ 6:28 pmThe New York Times today had a long front page story about the Ukraine aid hold, which they say, lasted for 84 days (not just the 55 days from July 18 to September 11 repeatedly cited by Jim Jordan during the House hearings.)
That would place the start at June 19. (His hostility, or distrust, of the Ukrainian government seems to have begun earlier – about April 24 (maybe that was just Yovanovich) till about May 13.
The New York Times seems to have found out things that the House Intelligence Committee did not – but in the course of doing so, they undermined the whole allegation in Article I of the House impeachment case, even if they don’t seem to realize it
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 6:37 pmThe New York Times reported today at the end of its long article:
B But it also reported, earlier in the article, that he got caught on July 18, the day there was abog conference call on Ukraine policy where a budget office official told all that the president had ordered the Ukrainian aid frozen.
So what was Elliot Engel doing all that time??
Twiddling his thumbs?
Apparently yes.
Some people in the administration expected more:
Of course, when they were told on July 18, they weren’t told of a time frame, or that it would last, so might have decided to wait and maybe send a letter or two.
The aid wasn’t time critical. It wasn’t “vital” as Adam Schiff claimed.
And it had not been linked with anything else, except a White House meeting by anyone.</i?
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 7:03 pm124. noel (f22371) — 12/30/2019 @ 3:46 am
Not a mistake if he asked to explain what really happened where he claiemd in the speech I quoted at #74:
This whole incident, I
think, is a figment of Joe Biden’s imagination – or somebody else’s imagination maybe.
As of right now, I don’t think enough Senators want to cross examine him about that. One problem for the Republicans is, it would show up Donald Trump to be wrong in what he said in the July 25 call. Many Republican senators don’t want to expose Donald Trump as having bad judgment. And some Democrats don’t want to expose Joe Biden as a liar.
The Wall street Journal wrote in an editorial in today’s paper:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-subpoena-standard-11577661976
More:
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 7:18 pmColonel Klink @159.
I see that in the 1868 impeachment they actually quoted Andrew Johnson giving his strongest arguments and gave him his say and said that was what they were against.
Now that did not happen in the Trump impeachment or else they would have had an article saying something like: (these speeches were delivered actually after or simultaneously with the impeachment but you could find other things:
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 7:50 pm158. Dustin (cafb36) — 12/30/2019 @ 4:39 pm
In the first place Trump did not say he committed sexual assault because he said they let him do (what would otherwise be sexual assault.) In the second place Trump said that he lied. He said it was “locker room talk” which amounts to saying he lied.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 7:54 pmiowan2 @89: “Obama ordering surveillance of the Trump campaign, is no hypothetical, facts publicly available show it to be factually accurate.’
92. Davethulhu (fe4242) — 12/29/2019 @ 4:07 pm
There’s nothing of course, except the idea all of his subordinates acted at his behest, and you still don;t get it..
Actually it was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who attempted to order surveillance of the Trump campaign:
https://archive.org/stream/ReidLetterToComey08272016/2016-08-27–Reid%20Letter%20to%20Comey_djvu.txt
The FBI gave him:
Te FISA warrant on Carter Page. and several other investigative steps:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:11 pmBS Sammy.
#1 Not putting up a fight is not the same as consent.
#2. Saying it’s locker room talk is not the same as saying he lied.
This is a good time to remember that Trump walked into a beauty pageant contestant dressing room full of half-dressed girls. One of them was 15. Did he have her consent because she “let him do it”?
This is a good example of how Trump makes smart and good people say bad and stupid things.
JRH (52aed3) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:16 pmNo and no.
Bragging that women don’t report or stop sexual assault due to your fame and wealth is absolutely sexual assault. Beyond that, Trump’s legal defense to a forcible and brutal rape was that you can’t rape your spouse at that time.
And Trump’s claim he sexually assaults people was an argument against his interests and is therefore more compelling than Trump’s attempt to distance himself from the comment. Your claim that Trump said he was lying is not reasonable. He plainly did not say that. He simply characterized his admission of sexual assault as ‘locker room talk’ because it wasn’t an appropriate thing to be known for.
Trump’s a New Yorker
If you ‘grab them by the pussy’ without consent, that is a crime.
Bear in mind, this isn’t isolated. There are multiple sworn affidavits describing brutal sexual assaults and groping and raping minors both before and after Trump admitted this behavior.
And that makes sense. Imagine a woman you care about. Some extremely powerful and grandiose politician happens to share an elevator with her. As soon as the doors close, he begins grabbing her. As soon as he gets off the elevator, he accidentally brags that he got away with it while being recorded. Your friend asks you what she should do. Very likely, you tell her to make a police report. Because this is a crime and it’s a horrible and deeply personal form of assault that victims cannot easily heal from. Due to how incredibly difficult it is to prove a lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, many sexual assault victims do not file a report. In particular, mob style litigious guys who play the odds and do this to people must be incredibly difficult to accuse. Even when there’s someone confessing that they do it all the time because they get away with it, some will say ‘but prove that happened this time.’
Some will even do like Iowa.
Now, I know Iowa is not intentionally making it easier to rape people. He is not intentionally siding with cruelty and evil. In his mind, Trump is a family man who would never… my gosh.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:36 pmThis derailed the discussion of bribing the Ukraine, and I admit my interest in the finer details of that impeachment aren’t all that interesting to me. We all know Trump is a despicable man not fit to shine George W Bush or Barack Obama’s shoes. I wouldn’t trust him in my home. I wouldn’t enjoy a beer with him. He’s lied to a lot of people, scammed a lot of people who wanted an education or a construction contract, and failed to fulfill his word in so many debts and contracts. We all knew this before he was elected.
It is remarkable that he was elected, but we know how that he had a lot of help from our nation’s mortal enemies. And we have watched Trump betray our friends over and over, with implications in the world that will make America less safe for generations.
It is insane the defenses this man gets. He copies Madeline Albright’s support of North Korea and we’re told this is a great success even as North Korea keeps advancing its weapons programs and keeps selling weapons to our nation’s mortal enemies. We’ve made a cold enemy out of the Kurds. And what a great few years Russia has had crushing freedom.
‘But how come Biden’s son got that job’ and a million other diversions from the basic question: what is Trump? yes, the democrats opened the door to the USA electing this guy, through a history of corruption What what is Trump?
We all know what he is, and I’m just delighted he’s been impeached. The GOP Senate gets to define their entire career. Are they cowards or are they patriots?
Now we get to find out!
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:48 pmOur best presidents, like Bush Sr, have the good sense to grope girls without bragging about it on tape.
Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/30/2019 @ 9:30 pm175, JRH (52aed3) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:16 pm
Trump sated “they let you do it which is consent.
Trump was lying because women, by and large, wouldn’t let a man do it
I said it amounts to that. What else do you think he meant by that? The subject matter? How wold that be a defense? This was intended as a defense. Why would you want to say that Trump was not saying he was lying in Access Hollywood tape even if you think he wasn’t lying there? What kind of a defense would it be if the meaning wasn’t that he said he was lying in the tape?
What do people mean when they say “locker room talk?” Lies, particularly about success in getting women to consent to things. Of course it’s not an outright acknowledgement of lying
Although in real locker rooms people don’t say things like what Trump said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/sports/what-exactly-is-locker-room-talk-let-an-expert-explain.html
Saying that was locker room talk was a lie, since anything resembling that wouldn’t likely be said in a locker room, but the meaning of that was that he lied in the tape, just like men lie in a locker room. He means to say it’s not true, not that it is something that is not too private to say.
It’s bad, but it’s not the same thing as sexual assault, though. He said he could do it because he was running the pageant. He might hope they wouldn’t realize he was looking at them, but that is something he probably did do, and did for that reason.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:36 pm
In that circumstance, it was not against his interests. He was trying to impress Billy Bush, and he didn’t realize he was being recorded.
So in an election campaign, he didn’t mind that he was known for making passes at women, using body language only, but only minded that people knew that he spoke about it? he problem is, of course that nearly everyone assumed he was lying: that women did not just let him do that. The Clinton campaign preferred people to think: He did it, but women did not let him do that and consent was the lie; Trump was saying no such things ever happened and the whole boast was a lie.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 9:33 pmDustin (cafb36) — 12/30/2019 @ 8:48 pm
Well, if they were patriots, they’d call all the witnesses, and let the chips fall where they may.
Trump would be seen to be innocent of the specific charges against him
And Joe Biden would be be seen to be innocent of the specific charge Trump has made against him.
Neither would come out looking very good, and Trump would be looking worse overall.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 9:41 pm178. Trump bragged that strange women (to him) didn’t object, and he didn’t mean out of fear.
Now, given that we all probably think that that’s not true, in what way is it not true?
That they did object, or that such incidents didn’t happen?
And regardless of which way it is not true, didn’t Trump mean, by his assertion that this was “locker room talk” that such incidents didn’t really happen at all?
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/30/2019 @ 9:46 pmPraying unarmed is not healthy.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/31/2019 @ 3:27 amA Minute To Pray, A Second To Die
nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 4:15 amStarring: Alex Cord, Arthur Kennedy, Robert Ryan
Director: Franco Giraldi
MCMLXVIII
So whether politicians lie or grope women, let’s elect the one who does it the most. Right, Trump guys?
DRJ (15874d) — 12/31/2019 @ 4:51 amBill Clinton has already served 2 terms.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/31/2019 @ 5:06 amI agree with mg. Why should only the Democrats be allowed to have had a w**re-mongering pimp in the White House?
nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 5:18 amlaughingly agreeing, nk.
mg (8cbc69) — 12/31/2019 @ 5:28 amEvangelicals often are from denominations that focus on how sinful humans are. Maybe it makes sense that they embrace someone who is honest about his sinfulness (although he doesn’t see it as sinning).
DRJ (15874d) — 12/31/2019 @ 5:42 amClinton did his groping behind closed doors. How pedestrian.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/31/2019 @ 5:44 amPraying while unarmed and facing in the opposite direction of access and egress even moreso.
urbanleftbehind (0984b7) — 12/31/2019 @ 5:54 amIranian attempt at deterrence:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/world/middleeast/baghdad-protesters-us-embassy.html
There were protesters, and a smaller group of attackers. The protesters are staging a sitdown outside the compound.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 7:18 amEvangelicals often are from denominations that focus on how sinful humans are. Maybe it makes sense that they embrace someone who is honest about his sinfulness (although he doesn’t see it as sinning).
Predestination might also explain some of it. The Calvinist sects don’t believe in Free Will. As I understand it, they hold that God determined each person’s character and fate at the beginning of Creation and there’s nothing the Reprobates can do to change it. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t, because they’re not of the Elect.
nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 7:18 amYes. I see those types as the ones who believe God picked Trump and is working through him. Maybe they are the same people.
DRJ (15874d) — 12/31/2019 @ 7:24 amThe LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. — Proverbs 16:4 (KJV)
nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 7:35 amThey do, iowan. I linked to the facts about Trump’s crimes, and they were sufficient IMO, and I linked to a thorough analysis that applied the facts to the law. And that’s not even getting to Trump’s obstruction felonies in the Mueller report or to his felony where he directed a scheme to make concealed payments to a pornstar so that his scuzzy extra-marital affair won’t get out before election time.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/31/2019 @ 7:54 amIt is apparent that adoring Trump loyalists get really angry and lash out with personal when their hero is rightfully called a criminal, or when he pardons soldiers who are rightfully called war criminals, but this isn’t a feelings-based community, no?
183. A Minute To Pray, A Second To Die
Steven H. Scheuer’s Movies on TV and Videocassette 1989-90 says:
Oaters?
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 7:58 am195.
Michael Cohen did this on his own initiative and told Trump about it later. He probably originally expected the National Enquirer to buy her story too.
As for the other one, judging by the excerpt from the tape released by Michael Cohen, Trump was afraid that it might get out after the election (or perhaps he was thinking of 2020 so it could still be characterized as a campaign finance violation?)
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17610856/trump-cohen-tape-karen-mcdougal-explained
Now when is David Packer hypothetically going to be hit by a truck? Before the election, or after the election?
Anyway the whole thing is not a campaign finance violation from Trump’s point of view, because he had other reasons besides the election to try to get the silence of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. (and the timing could be explained by that’s when they could get the most money)
But the National Enquirer didn’t have any other reasons. For them it was an illegal corporate campaign contribution (at least if co-ordinated with the candidate)
Bailing them out actually made it worse, because it showed co-ordination, and a loan for non-business purposes is also illegal to make.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 8:13 amHorse operas. Shoot-em-ups. Think of Star Wars in the American West in the year 1881, with horses, cowboys, and six-guns instead of TIE fighters, Jedis, and light sabers. Simple plot, lots of gunplay.
nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 8:19 amYeah, it did, Sammy. There was a 45-day period that Trump blew well past. Here’s a piece from someone who knows something about that law, and below is the concluding paragraph. This is a breach of an act of Congress, not a felony, but it’s still a law that he swore under oath–hand on Bible–to uphold.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/31/2019 @ 8:20 amSammy,
The conversation we’re talking about includes a specific account of how he went after a woman ‘like a b*tch’ and she rejected him. No, Trump’s statement was certainly not that they consent and enjoy being grabbed like that. It’s actually inconceivable that he meant that. He was talking about groping roughly, not some awesome love affair with a groupie.
Also, this is a man who has had to pay for sex his whole life. He is aware that women are not attracted to his personality or body. As Paul explained, paying for his prostitute with campaign funds actually is something is associates went to jail for (And is a crime).
Why do you think Trump is so bitter towards women? Fell any sort of way you want about Trump, but don’t feel jealousy. His impulse control, his need to prove himself through sex and ugliness, his relationship with his wives and daughter, and his anger at minorities and women… it’s not coming from a place any of us would want to be.
It makes me wonder what Putin really has on Trump. If it’s on Epstein’s island. That is what he did… blackmailed rich people. That is how Trump’s been acting, and for some reason, they not only took Epstein out, but the same (Russian) bots that swung the election are really chatty about how Epstein is a democrat scandal. Makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Dustin (cafb36) — 12/31/2019 @ 8:41 amFalse, Sammy.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:01 amIn Cohen’s admission to the scheme, he stated that it was “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office”. Cohen pled guilty to that felony, so it only stands to reason that the person who directed him is just as guilty, if not more.
@198. Putin will tell you they call that Sunday church services in America… so come to the Dark Side. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:08 amStop pretending to not understand what is going on. You know damn well what is going on. Take an actual position as to what is going on, and stop school-marming us about it. You insist on having this both ways, but you cannot.
Well, if they can’t say what they mean, then eff ’em. Part of the reason Trump was elected is that he at least spoke in declarative sentences.
As for having it both ways, it’s because I DON’T HAVE A SIDE HERE, as the case is presented. They charge Trump with something that I do not know if it is 1) true, or 2) worthy of removal if true. The second charge is mere frustration — they charge Trump with using Executive Privilege in situations that they think he shouldn’t have, at the same time that private citizen Joe Biden claims he can ignore impeachment-trial subpoenas.
I have said several times what I would vote to convict Trump on (incompetence & mis-demeanor). HE is not charged with those and to say that he should be convicted on things he is not charged with is HARDLY the way to defend the Rule of Law.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:13 amThe official charge against Andrew Johnson was that he fired a cabinet official without leave of Congress, a requirement that Congress had passed previously. The requirement was unconstitutional and was [much] later found to be so.
The real charge was that he had, to the best of his ability, stymied Reconstruction and prevented the Army from responding forcefully to the original Klan’s terrorism against freedmen. The Klan, like Johnson, was part and parcel of the Democrat Party’s opposition to equal rights for freed slaves.
And the Democrats won in the end.
Kevin M (19357e) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:29 amThe official charge against Andrew Johnson was that he fired a cabinet official without leave of Congress, a requirement that Congress had passed previously. The requirement was unconstitutional and was [much] later found to be so.
I dunno about that last. The cabinet official was the Secretary of War. The founders’ distrust of a standing army is built into the Constitution, as evidenced by, among other things, the provisions that it can only be funded for two years at a time and Congress shall make its rules and regulations. Even today, with our cyborg Constitution, I would make the argument that, Commander-in-Chief notwithstanding, when Congress creates a department (such as the Department of War) it can make it subject to any rules it pleases, including rules for hiring and firing its personnel all the way up to Secretary.
nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:42 am“ Oaters?”
You’ve never heard that term for westerns or rural-themed movies?
According to OED the first known use was 1946 and was a condensed form of ‘oat opera’ which was from 1937.
Other words/terms from 1946:
Arty-Farty (Artsy-Fartsy didn’t make it till 1962)
Biscotto
Care Package
Crypto
Flack (the press agent, not the anti-aircraft flak)
Jaycee
Latino
Microdot
Sloshed
Technophobe
Wilco
_
Lastly, regarding rural-themed movies, one of the most famous headlines ever appeared on the front page of Variety in 1935;
STICKS NIX HICK FLIX
http://www.terramedia.co.uk/Chronomedia/years/Sticks_nix_hick_pix.gif
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/31/2019 @ 12:02 pm_
re: Tenure of Office Act
I agree with nk’s argument, which is essentially the same one made by Justices Holmes and Brandeis in their Myers v. United States dissents, in a case concerning a similar law:
(The Tenure of Office Act that Johnson was impeached for violating was never tested in court before it was repealed)
Dave (1bb933) — 12/31/2019 @ 12:05 pmHeartache: Corey Lewandowski drops potential Senate run in New Hampshire
Dave (1bb933) — 12/31/2019 @ 12:07 pmGood, he came off like a Jim Jordan-esque Ohiyah boy anyway.
And Ben Shapiro smiled, then went back to his swipe apps to look for the next Latina victim.
urbanleftbehind (2b79d1) — 12/31/2019 @ 12:38 pmwho is ben shapiro?
mg (8cbc69) — 12/31/2019 @ 2:34 pm183. 196. 206.
“ Oaters?”
harkin (d6cfee) — 12/31/2019 @ 12:02 pm
No.
What A Minute To Pray, A Second To Die could be called is a “spaghetti western.” That;s a term I did run across. But probably it’s mostly for movies made years earlier than 1978.
Then “oat opera” must be a play on the term “soap opera” which was used for radio serials.
Other words/terms from 1946:
I think Microdot was used in a Reader’s Digest article in which J. Edgar Hoover gave a completely distorted picture of how it was discovered. It wasn’t discovered. Dusko Popov, the British Double Cross [also called XX or Twenty] agent “TRICYCLE” handed it over to them because it was what he was supposed to use.
They wouldn’t let him operate, except eventually, with very poor quality intelligence. He had tried to warn J. Edgar Hover about Pearl Harbor – not something he knew for a fact, but deduced from what he was told to spy about plus maybe some hint he got from Johnny Jebsen since he been told the Japanese had wanted information from the Nazis about a British attack on Taranto that destroyed hallf the Italian fleet on the night of November 11-12, 1940.
FBI agents wrote a letter to the American Historical Review in 1983
Volume 88, Issue 4
October 1983
Research Note Once More: Pearl Harbor, Microdots, and J. Edgar Hoover
They were defending the FBI and disputing a 1982 article.
https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/87/5/1342/125462?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:33 pm201. Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:01 am
That’s not an admission! That was an attempt to find something to turn state’s evidence about so as to get a reduced sentence. That was a very strained legal theory, which Trump and his lawyers did not agree with.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:37 pmHere’s the first page of the 1983 Research Note. Yo can see the sart of the letter:
https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/88/4/953/113892?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:41 pmThen “oat opera” must be a play on the term “soap opera” which was used for radio serials.
Or “horse opera”, which may be from the singing cowboys who sang while riding horses. Horses eat oats (and so do does and little lambs eat ivies they say). But who knows how some fishwrap scribe will dream up a new moniker to paste on some thing to make himself seem edgy?
nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:57 pm200. Dustin (cafb36) — 12/31/2019 @ 8:41 am
The person who strikes me as similar to Jeffrey Epstein is magician David Copperfield. He also had a private island and was interested in young girls.
He’s known to have had some association
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/07/12/jeffrey-epsteins-dark-faade-finally-cracks/#a14769529cf1
Dustin:
That was one theory (no examples were ever printed) I think it is more likely he swindled them. To blackmail he would have had to know something, for starters, or set them up. How many times could he do that without something having been printed by this date?
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:57 pmSF: It never got to the point of breaking the law.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 12/31/2019 @ 8:20 am
What the writers of that Lawfare article didn’t know was that there was not one hold, but a series of shorter holds:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html
Now, that may not have been really legal. What was going on was that Trump wanted a hold, and his people tried to find ways to do it legally, all the while not knowing how long it would last and hoping he would lift it any day. Some of them even hoped he would lift it after he spoke to Zelensky on July 25 but he didn’t and they had to formalize it in some way. They, probably not Trump, who wasn’t into these kinds of details, wanted it secret because of the obvious political difficulties it would create and because they hoped it would be lifted and nobody would be the wiser. Inmates running the insane asylum is not far from the picture.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 10:15 pmAnd it would be a more solidly based in fact grounds for impeachment than what they have now, (which is simply wrong) although there would be a big question if that is worthy of removal.
From Lawfare:
The New York Times found out something.
If it lacks a clear answer, it isn’t clearly illegal, but it certain;y was unprecedented. They don’t do things that way:
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 10:28 pmOverall, the White House lawyers seem to have concluded that the only thing that mattered was spending the money at the end of the fiscal year. (they had overcome the 45-day limit by splitting the hold up into tiny pieces) but they continued to argue they had more time.
From the New York Times article:
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 12/31/2019 @ 10:36 pmSammy, Cohen implicated Trump at his sentencing as well as beforehand. Trump’s scheme was no less felonious than his obstructing justice.
Paul Montagu (e72bbe) — 12/31/2019 @ 11:39 pmhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/nyregion/michael-cohen-sentence-trump.html
HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY!
nk (dbc370) — 1/1/2020 @ 7:51 amI think you and me are operating under a mistaken assumption in discussing deferrals:
199. Paul Montagu: There was a 45-day period that Trump blew well past. Here’s a piece from someone who knows something about that law, and below is the concluding paragraph. This is a breach of an act of Congress, not a felony, but it’s still a law that he swore under oath–hand on Bible–to uphold.
218. SF: they had overcome the 45-day limit by splitting the hold up into tiny pieces)
There’s nothing in the Lawfare article:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid
That says there’s a 45-day limit on deferrals written in the law.
What it says about 45 days is that it’s not done in practice:
Where the 45 days comes from they do not say, but 45 days is also the period of time Congress has to pass a bill approving a president’s recision of an appropriation.
However, while there’s no limit on time of a deferral (except that of the deferral would last past the end of the fiscal year, always Sept 30, there are limits on the reasons for one. It can more or less only be done in order to request more details about spending, or to reserve money as a insurance in case they would need to spend more on something (related) later.
That explains why the deferrals were all much shorter than 45 days. The New York Times doesn’t say exactly how long they were, but it says the first one of this kind lasted from (Thursday) July 25 through (Monday) August 5, or 6 or 7 business days, and that after that, they were issued “every few days” – each time probably using a different excuse. In reality, President Trump had made a decision to withhold the aid until further notice, without giving anybody in the government much of an explanation, and his subordinates worked to make it legal. They could also, have arranged for a formal message to Congress, but none of the people in the national security areas of the government, or even his political people, wanted him to do that. They wanted him to lift the hold.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/1/2020 @ 8:59 amI don’t see how one long hold or a series of shorter holds makes a differences makes a difference, Sammy. There was a hard date for when the funding was authorized, and the administration blew it off with unprecedented and sketchy legal reasoning. The DDID provides a decent summary.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/1/2020 @ 9:03 am219. Of course Michael Cohen implicated Trump – but that was not an admission against interest, but very much the opposite. Among other things, Cohen was begging to testify to Congress so he could stay out of jail longer (his problems were related to his personal fiances, and declarations made in the course of getting bank loans, although if an investigation that included him would not have started, the FBI would never have looked at it.)
A claim or “admission” by Michael Cohen doesn’t settle the issue. In fact it doesn’t mean anything at all. If and when Cohen said Donald Trump didn’t do something that would mean something, and in fact about some things he did say that.
He had Clintonite Lanny Davis as his lawyer. Lanny Davis had to retract one or two things he had leaked to the press about what Michael Cohen would say to Congress or in court.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/1/2020 @ 9:08 am222. Yes, in addition to the limits for holds not announced to Congress (which were limits on reasons not on time – there must have been at least half a dozen separate deferrals) there was the hard date of September 30.
The Pentagon had tried to argue that the hold(s) could not extend past August 12 or else they would miss the deadline for getting all the money out the door. The budget office (still controlled by Mulvaney I think) determined that they were bluffing, and they probably were.
Of course things got worse the closer they got to September 30. Nevertheless, as late as September 10, Michael Duffy at the White House claimed to top Pentagon budget official Elaine McCusker that there was still time to get all the spending out the door if the hold was lifted now, and if they overshot the deadline, it would be their fault. This was probably already after Trump had made a decision to lift the hold. And we don’t know exactly what prompted that but it was probably the controversy brewing in Congress.
As it is, the hold was lifted the next day, September 11, and the Pentagon only managed to spend 88% of the appropriation. The money wasn’t lost, because Congress transferred the appropriation to the next fiscal year in the continuing resolution.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/1/2020 @ 9:24 amRight at the beginning, when this started, when OMB needed to make a formal notification to the Pentagon to prevent the money from being released, Robert B. Blair, an aide to Mulvaney, replied to him in an email that
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/1/2020 @ 9:30 amThinking about it, I think was most likely after a decision to release the aid had been reached. Michael Duffy wrote to Elaine McCusker that if the Pentagon missed the September 30 deadline, it would be their fault. The New York Times article could make it sound like the deferral was still going to be continued but the Sept 10 date fro the email exchange is the tell. The article is also a little bit jumbled, as happens with very long articles with them.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/1/2020 @ 9:35 am205, nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2019 @ 9:42 am
Indeed a lot of people are protected from being fired by Civil Service rules (since 1883)
Now those people are not people who need to be confirmed by the Senate. I suppose needing Senate confirmation automatically takes people out of the civil service systen, but it is not a necessary condition for not being civil service.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/1/2020 @ 10:47 amTrump secretly reimbursed Cohen the Daniels payoff on an installment plan so as to further conceal Trump’s felony, with at least one of those payments made while Trump was president. It is not believable that Cohen was extorting the money from Trump, so the only valid reason is that Cohen was getting reimbursed in a manner that wouldn’t look like he wasn’t getting reimbursed. The total amount of the installments was proximate to the payoff.
Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/1/2020 @ 3:45 pm228. Paul Montagu (e1b5a7) — 1/1/2020 @ 3:45 pm
I thought he did it because e didn’t like to spend so much money.
What felony? Falsifying business records by disgsuisng that as legal fees?
We don’t know Trump agreed to reimburse him, but it could have been a specious of extortion. He might even have felt a moral obligation.
They were definitely keeping it a secret.
Because of the 2020 election?
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/1/2020 @ 4:24 pm@179 What the f-. Oh God, it’s the show runner. Do I tell him to stop? I’ll get fired. This is the first gig I’ve gotten in 6 months. I’ll never get hired again. “Difficult to work with.” What do I do? Maybe I’ll say I have to pee. He let go, thank you Jesus.
“See, they just let you do it.”
Pretend nothing happened. Pretend nothing happened. Please let me get out of this room before I puke.
Nic (896fdf) — 1/1/2020 @ 6:09 pmhttps://spectator.us/trump-win-again-2020-victor-davis-hanson/
Victor his the right of it, at least for me:
whembly (51f28e) — 1/2/2020 @ 10:00 am230. What Trump claimed was not that they didn’t complain, but that they didn’t object in any way. Ad there were no exceptions. It can’t be so. In many of the Weinstein etc. cases, while they may not have complained to others, they did to him at the time.
And this would be especially so if this was done without any preparation of the woman. Trump was lying to Billy Bush.
Sammy Finkelman (3bf6ea) — 1/3/2020 @ 10:08 am