The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (7 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,268
    Reaction score
    944
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    By Laura Bassett

    After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

    “Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

    Read the Full Story - InStyle
     
    TaylorB said:
    And if DC overturns the 2-1 ruling then it means that view is not representative of the majority view in the DC circuit.
    Click to expand...
    How? Wasn't this something like a Motion to Compel? The Court isn't deciding on whether there was obstruction.

    The fact there is disagreement among judges goes to the heart of what I have been saying. There is not a lot of clarity on these matters.
     
    JimEverett said:
    How? Wasn't this something like a Motion to Compel? The Court isn't deciding on whether there was obstruction.

    The fact there is disagreement among judges goes to the heart of what I have been saying. There is not a lot of clarity on these matters.
    Click to expand...
     
    JimEverett said:
    The Court isn't deciding on whether there was obstruction.

    The fact there is disagreement among judges goes to the heart of what I have been saying. There is not a lot of clarity on these matters.
    Click to expand...

    Again, it was you and SFL, not me, that were touting the implications of the ruling on the obstruction case and making a big deal of the fact that it was in Trump’s favor.
     
    TaylorB said:
    Again, it was you and SFL, not me, that were touting the implications of the ruling on the obstruction case and making a big deal of the fact that it was in Trump’s favor.
    Click to expand...
    Yes, and I have explained why.

    I am not sure why you think that if the en banc decision comes back and says McGahn has to testify to some degree or another that it is some sort of proof that obstruction occurred. It is not. There mere fact that there is disagreement amongst the judges themselves is proof that obstruction should have never been charged.
     
    It is sad that we are so sensitized by corruption, greed and being terrible at their jobs that we just shrug it off as our leaders continue to sell us out day by day. And just to prove how much of lemmings we are all, they also have us fight each other for them depending on political affiliation.
     
    Farb said:
    It is sad that we are so sensitized by corruption, greed and being terrible at their jobs that we just shrug it off as our leaders continue to sell us out day by day. And just to prove how much of lemmings we are all, they also have us fight each other for them depending on political affiliation.
    Click to expand...
    We agree.

    Now, which politician do you mean? Ha.
     
    thehill.com

    Appeals court rules against Trump, says House can sue to enforce McGahn subpoena

    A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the House’s subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn, ruling that Congress has the right to enforce its subpoenas in court.The 7-2 decision f…
    thehill.com thehill.com

    The DC Circuit en banc panel just ruled 7-2 that McGahn can be compelled by the House to testify. This ruling follows the 2-1 ruling by a smaller DC Circuit panel that separation of powers precluded the court from involving itself in the dispute. The 2 dissenting judges in the 7-2 en banc ruling are the same 2 judges from the 2-1 ruling saying they couldn't compel McGahn to testify.

    The ruling confirms that Congress can compel McGahn to testify about potential obstruction in the Mueller investigation and in the impeachment inquiry. Trump's claims of "absolute immunity" were, of course, never serious legal arguments, but rather were designed to force months of litigation to ensure that McGahn's testimony would have minimal political impact for impeachment and elsewhere. In that sense, the strategy has been successful thus far.

    The case is kicked back down to the lower court for further proceedings, i.e., further delay tactics by the Trump administration. Trump may also appeal this to SCOTUS; odds are pretty high he would lose there, too.

    McGahn is still a legal threat to Trump notwithstanding the fact that the impeachment ship appears to have sailed. He's probably the most relevant witness to several of Trump's actions that Mueller seemed to believe amounted to Obstruction of Justice (but did not charge, per DOJ guidelines precluding indicting a sitting president). Most important, I think, would be Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller, and Trump ordering McGahn to lie about that fact.

    The only thing that seems certain is that we'll see more delay from Trump. The merits of the Obstruction case on Trump's side (with respect to at least 3-4 of the 10 potential counts listed by Mueller) are as flimsy as the merits of their "absolute immunity" nonsense. Not that it would ever happen under Bill Barr, but if the Obstruction case ever cranks up again, the right wing media default defense will be that a president can't be indicted for obstructing an investigation he calls a hoax. They'd certainly rather go that route than trying to make an honest legal argument that his conduct doesn't meet the threshold for Obstruction of Justice -- it very clearly does.
     
    SFL, let's put the "Kilimnik wasn't Russian intelligence" narrative to rest, shall we?

    SaintForLife said:
    The polling data that Manafort shared with Kilimnik showed no conspiracy per Mueller and he said it was likely due to financial motivations because Manafort was in debt. It was later shown that Kilimnik was a high level State Department source, but Mueller withheld that from his report and court filings.
    Click to expand...

    SaintForLife said:
    That's a nice term paper you wrote documenting all the lies and questionable activities by shady Trump officials, but it still doesn't amount to any conspiracy or collusion between Trump and Russia.

    Do you have a link or proof that Kilimnik had ties to Russian Intelligence? Mueller didn't provide any evidence for that to be the case and he hid that Kilimnik was a US State Department asset. I wonder why Mueller tried to hide that. Mueller only said that the FBI had assessed that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence.
    Click to expand...

    SaintForLife said:
    Just about the entire premise of your post relies on Kilimnik having links to Russian intelligence when there is zero evidence for that and we now know that he was a State Department source which Mueller did his best to hide. Maybe you should recalibrate your argument based on what you didn't know about Kilimnik.
    Click to expand...

    SaintForLife said:
    All of the images I posted were from the Mueller report, or the transcript from the DC Federal judge saying that, despite the FBI claiming they had assessed Kilimnik as linked to Russian intelligence, that the Special Counsel provided no evidence to support that claim. I think I'll side with the DC Federal judge over the FBI and you can continue with your strawman about the Solomon article. I linked to a New York Times article showing that Kilimnik was a high level State Department source. What's your response to that and why would Mueller try to hide that in his report? Any theories on why Mueller did that? Maybe his dementia was acting up again. I'm sure it was just an honest mistake.
    Click to expand...

    Here are some excerpts from the bipartisan Senate Intel report about Kilimnik, his relationship with Manafort and the Kremlin (his potential connections to the hack and release are redacted), the fact that he's a "Russian intelligence officer at the center of the Committee's investigation," and how Manafort's obfuscation of the truth and breach of his plea agreement precluded a final determination as to why he was sharing internal polling data for key battleground states with the Russians:
    1597772399688.png

    1597772663218.png

    1597773367263.png


    The last paragraph ☝ is really something.

    SFL, you spent a great deal of effort trying to convince me and others that Kilimnik was not tied to Russian intelligence, even ridiculing my arguments for being premised on that fact. Now that a bipartisan Senate Report says Kilimnik is Russian intelligence, do you agree that he is? Since that was such a key dispute of yours, how does it change your view of the set of facts pertaining to the Manafort-Kilimnik connection?
     
    TaylorB said:
    SFL, let's put the "Kilimnik wasn't Russian intelligence" narrative to rest, shall we?









    Here are some excerpts from the bipartisan Senate Intel report about Kilimnik, his relationship with Manafort and the Kremlin (his potential connections to the hack and release are redacted), the fact that he's a "Russian intelligence officer at the center of the Committee's investigation," and how Manafort's obfuscation of the truth and breach of his plea agreement precluded a final determination as to why he was sharing internal polling data for key battleground states with the Russians:
    1597772399688.png

    1597772663218.png

    1597773367263.png


    The last paragraph ☝ is really something.

    SFL, you spent a great deal of effort trying to convince me and others that Kilimnik was not tied to Russian intelligence, even ridiculing my arguments for being premised on that fact. Now that a bipartisan Senate Report says Kilimnik is Russian intelligence, do you agree that he is? Since that was such a key dispute of yours, how does it change your view of the set of facts pertaining to the Manafort-Kilimnik connection?
    Click to expand...
    Mueller had greater investigative powers than the Senate and he never claimed Kilimnik was Russian intelligence. Mueller only claimed that he had connections to Russian intelligence and he also said Kilimnik was a State Department source. Do you think he was a double agent? Does that Senate report talk about Kilimnik being a State Department source?

    Does the Senate report cite any evidence that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence? That's a pretty big claim to make so you would think they would cite the evidence rather than say they are making the assessment. Considering the Senate had less investigative powers than Mueller, how do you think they supposedly found something that Mueller couldn't?

    There are some qualifiers in those excerpts you posted that show that their assessment is far from definitive like "suggested" and "likey." Qualifiers like "suggesting" were quite common in the Russia investigation so much that a "suggestion" started the entire investigation. Those previous "suggestions" were made without evidence and later fell apart when the actual evidence was released.
    20200818_134256.png


    20200818_134259.jpg
     
    SaintForLife said:
    There are some qualifiers in those excerpts you posted that show that their assessment is far from definitive like "suggested" and "likey." Qualifiers like "suggesting" were quite common in the Russia investigation so much that a "suggestion" started the entire investigation. Those previous "suggestions" were made without evidence and later fell apart when the actual evidence was released.
    Click to expand...
    I didn't conduct the investigation myself, so I don't have the evidence against Kilimnik personally, as I assumed that a 1000 page bipartisan report which repeatedly states in unequivocal terms that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer would put that issue to rest. But since you asked, pages 158-169 of the bipartisan Senate intel report discuss the facts known about Kilimnik:


    It says in multiple locations -- including the excerpt you quoted -- that the committee concluded he was Russian intelligence, giving reasons for the conclusion. There are like 200 reasons why it would be bad to give Kilimnik internal campaign polling data which are unrelated to whether he's Russian intelligence, but if those reasons aren't enough for you, he's also that, at least according to a bipartisan Senate intel committee.

    SFL, you got bad information about Kilimnik's Russian intel ties. It's not too late to recognize and acknowledge that.
     
    TaylorB said:
    I didn't conduct the investigation myself, so I don't have the evidence against Kilimnik personally, as I assumed that a 1000 page bipartisan report which repeatedly states in unequivocal terms that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer would put that issue to rest. But since you asked, pages 158-169 of the bipartisan Senate intel report discuss the facts known about Kilimnik:


    It says in multiple locations -- including the excerpt you quoted -- that the committee concluded he was Russian intelligence, giving reasons for the conclusion. There are like 200 reasons why it would be bad to give Kilimnik internal campaign polling data which are unrelated to whether he's Russian intelligence, but if those reasons aren't enough for you, he's also that, at least according to a bipartisan Senate intel committee.

    SFL, you got bad information about Kilimnik's Russian intel ties. It's not too late to recognize and acknowledge that.
    Click to expand...
    I looked through those pages you listed and I didn't see the Russian intelligence angle mentioned. What are the page numbers for the excerpts you post previously?

    I'm aware that you didn't conduct the investigation. The parts of the report that I've read had footnotes showing where the specific claims came from. Did the first instance where they claim he is Russian intelligence have a footnote showing where the claim came from? Forgive me for wanting to see the evidence rather than just accepting what the Senate said at face value. The Russia investigation has shown in most cases that once we have seen the actual evidence the prior claims were shown not to be true.

    Mueller didn't say that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence. He said that he had connections to Russian intelligence. He also said he was a State Department source. I got that information from the Mueller report. Did I get bad information from Mueller?

    You ignored that part of my post and also the question about how the Senate could find something that Mueller wasn't able to find. Will you agree that Mueller had greater investigative power than the Senate? Can you explain the questions in my last 2 of my paragraphs?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom