The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 Viewers)

SaintForLife said:

I agree that the Trump Russia election collusion investigation does appear that way.

Click to expand...

So...when the Republican president fired the lifelong republican head of the FBI....so the republican president's appointed deputy attorney general named a lifelong republican to be a special counsel....who, exactly, was it that was "just looking for political dirt and using the office of the Presidency to get it whether it exists or not."

SaintForLife said:

Turley talks about the 3 things House Democrats need to do to prove the case for impeachmen.

Click to expand...

It’s a dumb analogy since hamlet literally staged a play showing the Queens guilt for all to see

He might get more mileage out of a merchant of Venice analogy

insidejob said:

Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, judge rules — The Washington Post

The finding came in a case testing whether top presidential advisers have absolute immunity from congressional demands for information. The ruling in a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee has implications for witnesses that could be sought in the impeachment inquiry and for a...

apple.news

So there's this. Maybe this will get Bolton in front of the committee too.

Click to expand...

Yes, he will have to comply. Not only him, everyone that Sondland named.

This all but seals the deal on Impeachment hearings round two.

insidejob said:

Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, judge rules — The Washington Post

The finding came in a case testing whether top presidential advisers have absolute immunity from congressional demands for information. The ruling in a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee has implications for witnesses that could be sought in the impeachment inquiry and for a...

apple.news

So there's this. Maybe this will get Bolton in front of the committee too.

Click to expand...

Yep I am sure an appeal is gonna happen.

This is gonna get pretty darn good before it is over.

We get to see what rat will swim or go down with the ship.

SaintForLife said:

I agree that the Trump Russia election collusion investigation does appear that way.

Click to expand...

Except there was undeniably a criminal conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, thirty-four such entities to be exact, that have had charges filed against them and plea deals/convictions in every case so far that has been prosecuted.

SaintForLife said:

Turley talks about the 3 things House Democrats need to do to prove the case for impeachmen.

Click to expand...

I served with Tom Stoppard. I know Tom Stoppard. Tom Stoppard is a friend of mine. Sir, you're no Tom Stoppard.

Ayo said:

I served with Tom Stoppard. I know Tom Stoppard. Tom Stoppard is a friend of mine. Sir, you're no Tom Stoppard.

Click to expand...

Audiences know what to expect , and that is all they’re prepared to believe in

I've been having a hard time finding a comprehensive overview of the situation, with dates, key players, as the testimony came out. The BBC did a decent job, but it is missing a lot. The long version is what I'm talking about, as their shorter versions aren't worth really reading.


The closest is Adam Schiff's opening remarks, but I'd rather a media account that would ensure some level of fact checking I'd be a bit more inclined to trust. However, he's mostly sticking to the testimony and documented materials.



Then his closing remarks.. He gets a little ranty.



If anyone has a better outline of the facts, according to testimony and documentation, and how it weaves together, please share.

wardorican said:

I've been having a hard time finding a comprehensive overview of the situation, with dates, key players, as the testimony came out. The BBC did a decent job, but it is missing a lot. The long version is what I'm talking about, as their shorter versions aren't worth really reading.

Trump impeachment: The short, medium and long story

The president has been cleared at his impeachment trial. Here's the story in 100, 300 and 800 words.

www.bbc.com

The closest is Adam Schiff's opening remarks, but I'd rather a media account that would ensure some level of fact checking I'd be a bit more inclined to trust. However, he's mostly sticking to the testimony and documented materials.



Then his closing remarks.. He gets a little ranty.



If anyone has a better outline of the facts, according to testimony and documentation, and how it weaves together, please share.

Click to expand...

This one seems pretty good.

Beach Friends said:

What are you talking about Ward? Fist you come in and make a snarky little correction and then you ask him why he is in the mud?

Click to expand...

I don't feel like I owe you an answer, but I do feel like I owe @JimEverett one.

First, snark is in the eye of the beholder. I meant it more matter of factly. If correcting someone's grammar is "going into the mud" then what's the next level below that?

Now, why did I say that to Jim? Regarding the mud. Well, it is because he is very capable of having an intelligent, thoughtful, and often, a challenging conversation. He often does so without the need for being cute, or pulling any tricks. While some don't always appreciate it, I do find his use of the rhetorical scalpel an effective way to push back on certain assumed truths. There are other times the semantics drives me nuts. However, I respect his opinion, when he gives it forthright. I thought he was offering some good counter points, even if I don't agree with one key aspect (I'll get to that later when I go back and catch up in the thread), and putting in, what I'd judge as quality effort and engagement.

What I don't like seeing, and it's not just specific to Jim, is when people who are fully capable of having an intelligent conversation and have shown the ability to ignore trolls, bait, or a silly sentence, and push through the conversation... decide to just ignore their better selves and go low. And look, a lot of us have done that. And I probably would have said it better, if I weren't pressed for time and just going with my base reaction. But I really was sad. Now, I do realize there were other comments that lead to that, and they look like they've been deleted since then. Good. But as we all know, both "camps" have their posters who just don't seem to be a fit for the idea this board is. And those posters will likely be either corrected or removed, just like any other moderated site. I'm not going to worry about that. But if the rest of us allow ourselves to stoop to that level, then it's going to be tough sledding to make this site be what it could be. And that's why I was saddened by his reply. It was snarky, and funny, to be honest. I'm sure it felt good to say it. That's usually the point. Maybe I'm projecting a little, but I think there are a lot of us in that boat.

This site, and these threads would all be better off ignoring the guilty pleasures of counter punching the trolls and jackasses too often.

I'm sure I'll get some commentary about being on a soapbox, or lecturing at folks, but honestly ask yourself if I'm wrong about appealing to our better selves.

insidejob said:

Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, judge rules — The Washington Post

The finding came in a case testing whether top presidential advisers have absolute immunity from congressional demands for information. The ruling in a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee has implications for witnesses that could be sought in the impeachment inquiry and for a...

apple.news

So there's this. Maybe this will get Bolton in front of the committee too.

Click to expand...

It’s about time the judiciary started weighing in on these subpoenas. You can’t just say no.

Privilege may still apply to certain questions or topic areas - but you can’t just refuse.

superchuck500 said:

It’s about time the judiciary starts weighing in on these subpoenas. You can’t just say no.

Privilege may still apply to certain questions or topic areas - but you can’t just refuse.

Click to expand...

So does this mean all the others who have just flat out said no, now have to start coming in?

JimEverett said:

Of course. And I am not saying Trump did not abuse his power. I am just trying to understand the argument.
Why is the demand for a Ukranian investigation of Burisma something outside the lawful bounds of the PResidency while a demand for an invetigation into the Ukraine's activities in the 2016 election not?
O maybe they both are?

[EDIT] I didn't answer your first question - I'll give an example of an abuse of power - using the intelligence community to spy on an opposition campaign.
OR - using the Justice Department to investigate political opponenets;
appointing cabinet members without the consent of the Senate, etc. . .

Click to expand...

So, I may have missed the argument about Burisma being on one level and the Ukraine 2016 / crowdstrike thing being on another. I think both are improper, at a minimum, just on their face. When you tie it to the rest of the story about them being conditions for a White House visit (ok, enough, he doesn't have to invite anyone over) and Congressionally approved aid to prevent war/escalation or negotiations from falling apart (which doesn't seem to pass the ethics test), I think they're an abuse of the power of the Office of President, don't seem ethical, and don't seem to fit with the 'greater good' or 'greater good for America'.

Without unraveling that web too much yet, my point is that I don't see them as that different in terms of improper. I think, at best, you can probably give Trump a pass on the Crowdstrike bit, because he has demonstrated that he falls for hoaxes. He has passed on fake news. I mean, both are seemingly "fake news" in the real sense, but the crowdstrike bit is fully discussed here.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...mentioned-crowdstrike-conspiracy-during-his-/

So, giving Trump a huge benefit of the doubt here, the Administration could at least say that the FBI was the one investigating the DNC breach, that if Trump was actually right that the American Company Crowdstrike did "hide" a server, that he's just trying to help the FBI finish their investigation (that they already finished). Even though he probably has a personal interest it the "boogie man of the 2016 election" wasn't really Russia. It was Ukraine.. or no one really. And he's perfectly legitimate. Which, he is, but I think he feels like he's not, or that many don't think so. So, he's waaaay over compensating.

Now, the second investigation, isn't anything that I'm aware of the FBI investigating. The various discussions on Burisma seem to be that the issue Joe Biden was working on predated a lot of that, and was to get rid of a guy NOT investigating corruption, like what is in the National Interest. But when Trump asked about the Biden's, and how they should investigate them, it's personal. It's a political rival (not the only one, but the only one with a "kid" who was in Ukraine), it's personal, and there is no national interest in that specific "investigation", and to ask for it to just to publicly announced, but not care about the outcome, is enough of a signal to know he just wanted some dirt to be in the public sphere. Which, he didn't need them to say anything about. Look at it now. He just says it on his own. Perfectly legal. Campaigns can lie as much as they want. However, I'm under the impression they cannot seek foreign assistance.

So, I reject the argument that one is ok and the other isn't. I just think one paints a much clearer picture than the other, and one has a bit more ignorance as a defense involved.

superchuck500 said:

It’s about time the judiciary started weighing in on these subpoenas. You can’t just say no.

Privilege may still apply to certain questions or topic areas - but you can’t just refuse.

Click to expand...

I wonder if they'll just stonewall in person.

Trump blocked McGahn’s appearance, saying McGahn had cooperated with Mueller’s probe, was a key presidential adviser, and could not be forced to answer questions or turn over documents. Jackson disagreed, ruling that if McGahn wants to refuse to testify, such as by invoking executive privilege, he must do so in person and question by question.

The Justice Department’s claim to “unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity,” Jackson wrote, “is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.”
The judge ordered McGahn to appear before the House committee and said her conclusion was “inescapable” because a subpoena demand is part of the legal system — not the political process — and “per the Constitution, no one is above the law.”

“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires,” Jackson wrote in a 118-page opinion. “Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.”

Click to expand...

So, they can answer every question with "Executive Privilege has been invoked".??

What are the odds the judge gets attacked? Forget that she's seemingly highly qualified and was considered for the Supreme Court...

wardorican said:

I wonder if they'll just stonewall in person.



So, they can answer every question with "Executive Privilege has been invoked".??

What are the odds the judge gets attacked? Forget that she's seemingly highly qualified and was considered for the Supreme Court...

Click to expand...

Everyone is a potential target, but in this case it wouldn’t make any sense. They still have appeal and who knows what other stonewalling they can come up with.

It is a minority woman with a unique name that ruled against Trump though so all bets are off.

Dadsdream said:

There's no shortage of reports, polls and predictions from October 2016 that said Hillary would win in a landslide.

Perhaps we should be more concerned with the new Moody's poll I posted, saying DJT will win in a landslide.

Click to expand...

So you don't think polls are reliable, but you yet again rely on a poll to support your position, while at the same time accuse others of quibbling and playing games.

Really?

SaintForLife said:

Are all the Democratic candidates for President protected from any investigation because they could possibly be Trump's 2020 opponent?

Click to expand...

They are definitely protected from the person running against them using the powers of the president's office to get a foreign government to announce they are being investigated for something.

wardorican said:

I wonder if they'll just stonewall in person.



So, they can answer every question with "Executive Privilege has been invoked".??

What are the odds the judge gets attacked? Forget that she's seemingly highly qualified and was considered for the Supreme Court...

Click to expand...

Executive privilege ostensibly applies - I imagine it will be invoked.