Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on October 06, 2019, 02:04:50 PM

Title: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 06, 2019, 02:04:50 PM
Per CCP's suggestion, starting this thread.  Let's make sure to be precise with regard to on which thread we post!   


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/06/mcconnell-vows-kill-democrat-impeachment-effort-senate/
Title: Impeachment. Adam Schiff, Pinicchio video
Post by: DougMacG on October 07, 2019, 08:30:26 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1180245134363025415/video/1
Title: Volker testimony contradicts impeachment narrative
Post by: DougMacG on October 07, 2019, 08:33:14 AM
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/testimony-from-ukraine-envoy-kurt-volker-directly-contradicts-democrats-impeachment-narrative/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=aa77675a62-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-aa77675a62-81168121
Title: Rolling Stone; Matt Taibbi: What whistleblower?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 07, 2019, 09:12:28 AM


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on October 07, 2019, 09:55:32 AM
RE:

"https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/whistleblower-ukraine-trump-impeach-cia-spying-895529/"

fascinating

Title: Impeachment, Andy McCarthy on quid pro quo
Post by: DougMacG on October 08, 2019, 06:21:48 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/quid-pro-quo-and-extortion-welcome-to-foreign-relations/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on October 08, 2019, 01:30:46 PM
Fake whistleblower who was the catalyst for the current informal impeachment inquiry in the House Intelligence Committee had a professional tie to a current Dem candidate for president.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/whistleblower-had-professional-tie-to-2020-democratic-candidate)
Title: Geraghty
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2019, 11:45:49 AM
   Our Constitution Is Clear on Powers, and We Really Should Read It
By Jim Geraghty

October 9, 2019 10:03 AM

President Donald Trump speaks about the House impeachment investigation at the White House in Washington, D.C., October 7, 2019. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

Making the click-through worthwhile: a full-throated defense of the powers and authorities of those in elected office, as set under the U.S. Constitution, and how that stance proved inconvenient to many in the political realm in recent years; ESPN suddenly loses its voice when it comes to covering the NBA’s dispute with China.

The Powers of an Office Don’t Change Depending on Whether You Like the Officeholder

The powers and authority of an elected office do not change depending upon whether you like or agree with the person in that office.

This means that when the House of Representatives or one of its committees requests documents or testimony or issues a subpoena, an administration can’t simply ignore the request — or send an eight-page letter from lawyers that amounts to a middle finger.

It doesn’t matter if the administration officials insist there’s nothing important in the requested documents, or if the administration says the demand for the documents is just a “blatant partisan maneuver to discredit the White House in an election year.”

In the coming days, you’re going to hear members of Congress outraged at the White House defiance of a coequal branch of government. They will argue that the refusal to comply with demands amounts to a coverup of a crime, a violation of the Constitution, and that resisting officials like the attorney general “knows the answers are there because he’s the one who has the documents that contain the answers we’re looking for. He’s the gatekeeper here, and if he won’t give us the information this institution needs to do our duty, our constitutional duty, then we will use every legal and constitutional tool that we have to get to it.”

You’re going to hear members of the president’s party declare that “this is a witch hunt, pure and simple, Mr. Speaker, and it has no place in this House.” They will howl that the fight “is about politics” and the opposition “doing whatever it takes to attack the administration, no matter the issue, no matter the cost.”

Members of the president’s party will contend that perhaps the fight is the point, that the outcome matters less to the House majority leaders than assuring their base that they’re fighting the president with everything they’ve got: “Under this majority, everything has to be a fight — everything. Everything has to be a confrontation. Everything has to be a showdown. And I get the politics. I understand this is an election year. But this goes way, way too far. It is just wrong.” The president and his allies will argue that the opposition party’s base voters never recognized the preceding election’s results, and furious grassroots activists believe that the president isn’t really legitimate, and that thus they cannot possibly honor a request driven by such unhinged and extreme motives.

And in the end, it will all result in the House finding Eric Holder in contempt.

Oh, I was talking about former attorney general Eric Holder’s refusal to turn over documents to Congress about Fast and Furious back in 2012; what did you think I was talking about?

The thing is, back then a lot of folks seemed to think Holder had the right to refuse to turn over those documents, and that the subpoenas were somehow illegitimate or unlawful because of what they claimed was blatant partisanship and bad faith demonstrated by the Congressional majority. (The fact that 17 House Democrats agreed with the GOP majority was conveniently ignored.)

The Atlantic’s David Graham declared, “There is a strong whiff of election-year fishing to this case.” The New York Times editorial board denounced the GOP for “shamelessly turning what should be a routine matter into a pointless constitutional confrontation.” Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson thundered the contempt vote against Holder was “a partisan witch hunt by House Republicans,” “without legitimate cause,” and that Darrell Issa was trying to “manufacture something that can be portrayed as a high-level Obama administration cover-up.”
Stay Updated with Morning Jolt

A guided tour of the news and politics driving the day, by Jim Geraghty.

Rep. Jerry Nadler didn’t vote on the contempt charge; he walked out during the vote, calling the effort “shameful” and “politically motivated.” More than 100 Democrats joined him in refusing to vote. Nancy Pelosi also called the contempt vote “shameful” and contended that it was really designed to suppress Democratic turnout in 2012: “These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote. They’re closely allied with those who are suffocating the system: unlimited special interest secret money.” To Pelosi, it was simply unthinkable that House Republicans could have wanted to see Department of Justice documents relating to Fast and Furious for any legitimate reason.

Just to be clear, back in 2012, a lot of people thought it was just fine if an administration and its officials refused to turn over documents because they thought the members of Congress investigating them were a bunch of partisan hacks.

When Holder defied Congress, a lot of people cheered. When Congress held him in contempt, a lot of people thought Holder should wear it as a badge of pride.

A Wired headline declared, “Holder Held in Contempt of Congress, Which Means Almost Nothing.” Admittedly, a big reason for the lack of consequence was the fact that the executive branch official in charge of enforcing contempt of Congress against Attorney General Eric Holder was . . . Attorney General Eric Holder. (“Officer! Arrest that man looking at you in mirror!”)

Back then, we could have had a broad bipartisan consensus that even the biggest, dumbest partisan hack is entitled to the full powers and authorities of the office. We could have all agreed that even if a committee chairman has a bigger axe to grind than Paul Bunyan, that didn’t make compliance with requests for documents, subpoenas, or testimony optional. We could have agreed that congressional oversight of the executive branch was an important tool against bad decisions, corruption, and coverups, and that because of its importance, oversight by a lawmaker we thought was too partisan was still better than brazen disregard and defiance of that oversight.

But congressional Democrats and their allies in the media didn’t make that choice. They established the argument that some defiance of Congressional subpoenas is okay, as long as the executive branch believes that the Congressional investigators are being unfair. And now, here we are.

No, the president of the United States and his administration should not refuse to cooperate with a House impeachment effort in any way, shape or form. But we didn’t get here overnight. The power and authority of an elected office do not change depending upon whether you like or agree with the person in that office — and that applies to the current president, too.

If you want an imperial presidency when your guy is in charge, you have to live with the consequences of an imperial presidency when the other guy is in charge. From the founding of the United States legal system to 1963, there were no judicially imposed nationwide injunctions against any federal policy. During the eight years of the Obama administration, judges imposed 20 national injunctions. In the less than three years from the start of Trump’s presidency to September 2019, judges have imposed 40 national injunctions, including ones blocking administration changes to the DACA program, the question about citizenship on the national census, and changes to the temporary protected status of immigrants.

The good news for the administration is that sometimes some superior court will look at the national injunction and rule it unjustified. As the Republican Policy Committee notes:

    . . . on July 26 the Supreme Court stayed an injunction from a California federal district court that would have prevented the Trump administration from repurposing appropriated funds to build a border wall. Second, on September 11 the Supreme Court stayed a nationwide injunction against the Trump administration’s new rule requiring asylum seekers who cross the U.S.-Mexico border to apply for asylum in Mexico or another third country before applying in the United States. These decisions did not resolve the underlying lawsuits, but did allow the federal government to move forward with its policies. In addition, on June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court stayed a district court injunction against the Trump administration’s travel ban against people from several nations, which allowed that policy to continue.

There’s this really great document under glass at the National Archives that spells out what the powers of Congress and what the powers of the executive branch are. Some folks in Washington should check it out sometime, they would learn a lot.
Title: you mean the bombast is not winning people over
Post by: ccp on October 09, 2019, 05:14:50 PM
Not shocked .
lets see if he flies even more off the handle:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

looking worse everyday
he is not even working with his fellow Republicans
it seems

 :cry:
Title: Biden's friend
Post by: ccp on October 10, 2019, 04:30:10 PM
so it was Biden he is (blowing) for....

I figured this

Only he is around long enough likely to know this intelligence guy.

Now we come full circle back to the Deep State and Biden (and Obama)

Could even the Clintons be in this loop?

Certainly the list of names of potential blowers can be narrowed.

Thank God we have people willing to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution and save Democracy from the Orange man and his fascist party.   :wink:



Title: Taibbit: We're in a permanent coup
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2019, 08:26:46 PM

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup?r=1cd0c&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3lp49mkhkp7YCg0u8kcBpYaoTP7r5jMqUk-mDane1JvQn-QY8zO4cFnOY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 15, 2019, 11:44:39 AM
I confess to feeling a bit worried in this moment.  The comment attributed to Bolton about Rudy being a hand grenade and Rudy's cronies being arrested is emblematic.  Combined with the serious ding to Trump's credibility over "abandoning the Kurds" AND THE PRECIPITOUS MANNER IN WHICH HE DID IT weaken his aura of strength-- and this is a particularly bad moment for that.  The Reps are using this as a way of distancing themselves from him.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on October 15, 2019, 01:43:46 PM
I confess to feeling a bit worried in this moment.  The comment attributed to Bolton about Rudy being a hand grenade and Rudy's cronies being arrested is emblematic.  Combined with the serious ding to Trump's credibility over "abandoning the Kurds" AND THE PRECIPITOUS MANNER IN WHICH HE DID IT weaken his aura of strength-- and this is a particularly bad moment for that.  The Reps are using this as a way of distancing themselves from him.

All valid points (IMHO), especially the 'manner in which he did it'.  Also the manner in which he hasn't explained it very well, as you mentioned about the Mpls speech where he could have really laid out the case.  Besides policy and manner, he gave his opponents talking points. We will see where that leads but I don't think those talking points will hold up.  No one at the top of the Dem side would have even ordered what it took to win against ISIS in Syria much less kept troops in place longer or indefinitely to protect the Kurds.  They are blowing smoke while he is making real decisions about real American lives and military commitments.

Each Dem will say, as they say with China tariffs, I would have done it differently, I would have done it better.  But they wouldn't have.
---
The Kurds lost 11,000 in the last conflict while the US lost 24, if I heard that correctly.  That sounds like we were supporting their effort, not fighting alongside them.  We can't directly take up or support their fight against Turkey because of NATO rules.  NATO may be the first thing to change if this turns into the genocide people are suggesting.

The tripwire point made is one thing but are troops aren't their to be a human shield. The idea of another red line test is one we don't want to fail.

As far as notice goes, he has been telling them this is coming from the start, 10 months ago and again a couple of months ago.  Didn't he lose Mattis and Bolton over this?  It was in all the papers.  )

Newsweek, 12/20/2018
President Donald Trump announced that Defense Secretary James Mattis was [resigning] one day after the commander in chief suddenly declared the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria.
https://www.newsweek.com/james-mattis-leaving-trump-defense-secretary-resign-1267657
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/09/26/bolton-us-troops-will-stay-in-syria-until-iranian-troops-leave

In spite of the way the evening news words it, this offensive didn't start because of America's withdrawal.  This offensive was delayed because of America's presence in the area.  The 10 month delay from the first notice gave them some time to take cover or make peace.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 15, 2019, 08:35:38 PM
"As far as notice goes, he has been telling them this is coming from the start, 10 months ago and again a couple of months ago.  Didn't he lose Mattis and Bolton over this?  It was in all the papers. , , ,

"In spite of the way the evening news words it, this offensive didn't start because of America's withdrawal.  This offensive was delayed because of America's presence in the area.  The 10 month delay from the first notice gave them some time to take cover or make peace."

Very well said!  I will be using this. 
Title: Spinning Mulvaney's quid pro quo
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2019, 11:26:35 AM

https://patriotpost.us/articles/66210-spinning-mulvaneys-quid-pro-quo?mailing_id=4596&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4596&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
Title: Beck: Soros was behind push to fire Uke prosecutor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2019, 07:18:24 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio/ukraine-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-fired?utm_content=buffer7d677&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-glennbeck&fbclid=IwAR2IEOQPc2XTPDfDMG3PpaJjIb68EPdz91u5JvShDiptjHz0z9pdwhZz-tA
Title: Republican cracks forming
Post by: ccp on October 21, 2019, 08:04:40 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lindsay-graham-trump-impeachment.html

Maybe this will at least get Trump to control himself rather than go around making things continuously worse

Frankly he can't be defended anymore

from my point of view

But I will support him against any Democrat but reluctantly.....

I am tired of this daily stupid tit for stupid tat.
Title: Re: Republican cracks forming
Post by: DougMacG on October 21, 2019, 09:59:41 AM
"But I will support him against any Democrat but reluctantly....."

One point is that he is far better than any of the Democrats on every issue and principle, two Supreme Court picks for example.  Secondly, no other Republican could have stood up to this.  His unconventional demeanor unfortunately is a necessary part of his political arsenal.
Title: Re: Republican cracks forming
Post by: G M on October 21, 2019, 10:15:11 AM
"But I will support him against any Democrat but reluctantly....."

One point is that he is far better than any of the Democrats on every issue and principle, two Supreme Court picks for example.  Secondly, no other Republican could have stood up to this.  His unconventional demeanor unfortunately is a necessary part of his political arsenal.

Exactly! Better men would have been destroyed by this.
Title: Re: Republican cracks forming
Post by: DougMacG on October 21, 2019, 10:44:01 AM
Trump uses Democrat tactics against them.  Plenty of things Obama said and did were just as bombastic, greeted with no outrage outside of a few conservative outlets (like ours).  See our Glibness thread in its entirety.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on October 21, 2019, 02:32:36 PM
"Exactly! Better men would have been destroyed by this."

 :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

That said, IF he doesn't bring the Republicans in the House Senate and locally down with him! 

If he just played it a bit smarter  he would not have to be on *defense* , and we with him, EVERY Day!

He just keep giving the enemy more and more to keep up the barrage.
Just got done with Mueller and what the heck, he goes and does exactly what he just got exonerated with the Mueller report by extorting influence. 

For Gods sakes can we please have some peace and maybe an inkling of harmony?



Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on October 21, 2019, 02:49:43 PM
OTOH maybe a slightly better man , less impulsiveness and foul mouthed

would not have had to take this much abuse
or given the enemy as much to try to crush him in the news with.....

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 21, 2019, 04:18:04 PM
"(E)xtorting influence"? 

To simple minded me it was perfectly correct to ask Zelensky to look into the possibility that Biden & Son had been engaged in venal skullduggery.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on October 21, 2019, 05:03:39 PM
but the appearance of holding up, what 400 million, to the ukes ?

isn't that exactly what the mueller report just showed he did not do
more or less




Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 21, 2019, 05:38:58 PM
a) If we have it right, Zelensky did not know at the time of the phone call, which makes the whole accusation specious;

b) perfectly good reasons to hold up the money-- sussing out whether the money would be spent as intended or corruptly stolen, and pressuring the Euros to do their fg part.

Title: Uh oh , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2019, 02:49:12 PM
Well, this would appear to blow out of the water a goodly percentage of the defense here , , ,  leaving only that insisting on investigating the possibility of corruption by the previous VP was perfectly valid , , , which is the point I have been making all along , , ,

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/us-ambassador-testifies-trump-made-ukraine-aid-contingent-on-biden-investigations/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=18404501
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on October 22, 2019, 03:03:02 PM
well what is wrong doing the same thing the minute after the Mueller report said you did not do anything with a chance to go on offense for the first time in 2.5 yrs only to put himself , and us , right back on defense .



no biggy

seems like a wise strategy to me.   :roll:

Trump is like a blind man in a bar room brawl  -

just swinging in every direction, no real plan no coordination just flailing

And to think this whole thing was soooo unnecessary .
Biden was toast anyway.

Frankly, what stupidity arrogance.
He puts our whole thing at risk.

Sorry I know I have more or less said this but I am just about as pissed at him as at the Left .

Now we have CNN trying to tell me someone who was high up ex official is writing a tell all book under the "Anonymous"
and who is NOT doing it for the money and has such courage and bravery to come forward , get this without revealing his or her name..


What kind of dumb ass shit is this?
This person is brave ? 
Sounds like a cowardness rats ass to me.......

I have to stop reading drudge and cable news.

Maybe just tune into Rush on radio for peace of mind....

Title: Things only Dems can say
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 23, 2019, 01:15:28 PM
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/things-only-democrats-can-say.php 
Title: Yet another accusation turns out to be a fart
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2019, 12:32:08 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/schiffs-smoking-gun-witness-reportedly-connected-company-paying-hunter-biden/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2019-10-24&utm_campaign=pushtraffic
Title: Impeachment, Removal math
Post by: DougMacG on October 25, 2019, 08:48:25 AM
Because of swing district votes, the House doesn't even have  a simple majority to approve an inquiry.

Removal in the Senate needs 2/3rds vote of those present.  The Dems 47 Senators include Joe Manchin D-West Virginia and Doug Jones D-alabama, unlikely to vote for removal.  Best case, the Dems need 20-22 Republican votes to join them. 

Since this is political, they need the 67 most liberal Senators.  From the source below that includes, Roy Blunt, Missouri, Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Shelby, Grassley, Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Daines, Montana, Moran, Kansas, Kennedy, Louisiana, Hoeven, North Dakota, Sullivan Alaska, and more.
http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

Without a real crime that we don't know of right now, that isn't going to happen.

What about Senators running for President?  They would need to suspend campaigning in order to remove their general election, while competing with each other.  Take away Senators Warren, Sanders, Booker, Harris and Klobuchar and Dems would have to nearly run the table with Republicans.

One more thing, in nearly two and a half centuries, no Senator has ever voted to convict /remove a President in his own party.

Without a crime, it isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2019, 10:39:19 AM
The true point I think is to weaken Trump for the election.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2019, 03:56:53 PM
What of the separation of powers argument?

The report is an Executive Branch effort.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/467506-judge-orders-doj-to-release-grand-jury-material-from-mueller-report?userid=188403
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on October 25, 2019, 04:25:04 PM
quote author=Crafty_Dog
What of the separation of powers argument?
The report is an Executive Branch effort.
--------------------------------------------

Also Congressional funding, congressional oversight.  I thought Grand Jury material did not get released. 535 people can keep a secret?  In any case, it's the same material that led to the conclusion of no collusion, no criminal charges.

Witch hunt continued.
Title: Impeachment Could Keep Senators Off The Campaign Trail For Weeks
Post by: DougMacG on October 27, 2019, 05:31:49 AM
https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/18/impeachment-senators-campaign-trail-elections/
Title: Rush makes the same point
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2019, 06:24:24 AM
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/10/24/did-you-know-senators-cant-campaign-during-an-impeachment-trial/?fbclid=IwAR1wiyjyX-8zu7Mp0E9EYoyYC4qC8R7ZCjIWTU22rOvoNNJ4k9T3ygp1BcU
Title: WSJ: Foreign Influence and Double Standards
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2019, 06:57:43 AM
That's interesting- I did not know that- even though the Ukes did not start an investigation if Biden & Son, they got the money anyway.
================

Foreign Influence and Double Standards
Democrats deplore Trump on Ukraine but not Clinton in 2016.
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 25, 2019 7:03 pm ET
President Donald Trump speaks at the 2019 Second Step Presidential Justice Forum at Benedict College in Columbia, S.C., Oct. 25. Photo: Evan Vucci/Associated Press

Democrats want to impeach Donald Trump for inviting Ukraine to investigate 2020 election rival Joe Biden. But then why are they opposed to investigating whether Democrats used Russian disinformation to get the FBI to investigate Donald Trump in 2016?

That’s the double standard now on gaudy public display over multiple news reports that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the origins of the Russian fiasco of 2016 has become a criminal probe. Attorney General William Barr this year appointed Mr. Durham, a highly regarded and veteran prosecutor, to examine this part of the Russia tale that special counsel Robert Mueller chose to ignore.
John Durham's Review of Russia and The FBI is Now a Criminal Probe
Subscribe

Yet you’d now think, judging from the political reaction, that Mr. Durham was Rudy Giuliani. “These reports, if true, raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under AG Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump’s political revenge,” said a joint statement from Democratic impeachment investigators Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff.

“If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution, or to help the President with a political narrative for the next election,” the statement added, “the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage.”

This is called pre-emptive political damage control. Democrats know that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump, and Fusion hired former British spook Christopher Steele, who compiled a dossier of allegations about Mr. Trump from Russian sources that turned out to be false.

Worse, Fusion funneled the dossier to the FBI, which used it to persuade the secret FISA court to issue a warrant to eavesdrop on Trump official Carter Page. Democrats now want to discredit any attempt to hold people accountable if crimes were committed as part of this extraordinary dirty trick.

But how can you be appalled about one form of foreign intervention in U.S. politics while whitewashing another? Based on the public evidence so far, Mr. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities in 2016. Mr. Trump may also have delayed U.S. aid as leverage to persuade Ukraine’s new president to open an investigation. Yet the aid did flow again starting Sept. 11, even though Ukraine never opened the investigation of the Bidens that Mr. Trump wanted. In other words, Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate an opponent, even though he failed.

By notable contrast, the Clinton campaign’s invitation and payment for foreign intervention in 2016 against Donald Trump succeeded. Russian disinformation was used by America’s premier law enforcement agency to justify investigating an American presidential campaign. This is what Mr. Durham is looking into, and thank heavens someone finally is.

Regarding potential crimes, Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham referred Mr. Steele to the FBI and Justice Department “for investigation of potential violation(s)” in 2018 related to the dossier and Mr. Steele’s public comments. Devin Nunes, former head of the House Intelligence Committee, also sent eight criminal referrals to Justice this year related to the Russia probe, including leaks of “highly classified material.”

Mr. Durham may decide not to charge anyone with crimes in the end, and that’s fine. What Americans deserve to know is what happened, including who in the Obama Administration or FBI worked with Fusion GPS, whether the White House or CIA were involved, and what James Comey’s FBI told the FISA court. People need to be held publicly accountable so reforms can be made and to serve as a deterrent so this doesn’t happen again.

Mr. Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine will be investigated to a fare-thee-well, and it seems inevitable that Democrats will impeach him. They have wanted to do so since the day he was elected. But they and their media friends can’t then object with a straight face to an investigation into the Clinton campaign’s solicitation of Russian misinformation in 2016. Their double standard is impeaching the credibility of their impeachment of Donald Trump.
Title: Rivkin & Foley: This Impeachment subverts the Constitution
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2019, 07:32:46 AM
Third post


This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution
It’s nakedly political and procedurally defective, and so far there’s no public evidence of high crimes.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
Oct. 25, 2019 5:59 pm ET
Rep. Adam Schiff speaks beside Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill, Oct. 15. Photo: carlos jasso/Reuters

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense. Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.

The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority vote, not by a press conference called by the Speaker. Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.
John Durham's Review of Russia and The FBI is Now a Criminal Probe
Subscribe

The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 vote. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.

Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret. Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation.

Unlike other impeachable officials, such as federal judges and executive-branch officers, the president and vice president are elected by, and accountable to, the people. The executive is also a coequal branch of government. Thus any attempt to remove the president by impeachment creates unique risks to democracy not present in any other impeachment context. Adhering to constitutional text, tradition and basic procedural guarantees of fairness is critical. These processes are indispensable bulwarks against abuse of the impeachment power, designed to preserve the separation of powers by preventing Congress from improperly removing an elected president.

House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they hate Mr. Trump. Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. (A federal district judge held Friday that the Judiciary Committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry and therefore must see grand-jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but that ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.) And the House cannot cure this problem simply by voting on articles of impeachment at the end of a flawed process.

The Senate’s power—and obligation—to “try all impeachments” presupposes that the House has followed a proper impeachment process and that it has assembled a reliable evidentiary basis to support its accusations. The House has conspicuously failed to do so. Fifty Republican senators have endorsed a resolution sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham urging the House to “vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections” before proceeding further. If the House fails to heed this call immediately, the Senate would be fully justified in summarily rejecting articles produced by the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry on grounds that without a lawful impeachment in the House, it has no jurisdiction to proceed.

The effort has another problem: There is no evidence on the public record that Mr. Trump has committed an impeachable offense. The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited.

Abuse of power encompasses two distinct types of behavior. First, the president can abuse his power by purporting to exercise authority not given to him by the Constitution or properly delegated by Congress—say, by imposing a new tax without congressional approval or establishing a presidential “court” to punish his opponents. Second, the president can abuse power by failing to carry out a constitutional duty—such as systematically refusing to enforce laws he disfavors. The president cannot legitimately be impeached for lawfully exercising his constitutional power.

Applying these standards to the behavior triggering current calls for impeachment, it is apparent that Mr. Trump has neither committed a crime nor abused his power. One theory is that by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Kyiv’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter was unlawful “interference with an election.” There is no such crime in the federal criminal code (the same is true of “collusion”). Election-related offenses involve specific actions such as voting by aliens, fraudulent voting, buying votes and interfering with access to the polls. None of these apply here.

Nor would asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival violate campaign-finance laws, because receiving information from Ukraine did not constitute a prohibited foreign contribution. The Mueller report noted that no court has ever concluded that information is a “thing of value,” and the Justice Department has concluded that it is not. Such an interpretation would raise serious First Amendment concerns.

Equally untenable is the argument that Mr. Trump committed bribery. Federal bribery statutes require proof of a corrupt intent in the form of a quid pro quo—defined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1999), as a “specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” There was no quid pro quo in the call. Mr. Zelensky has said he felt no pressure, and the purported quid (military aid to Ukraine) was not contingent on the alleged quo (opening an investigation), because the former materialized within weeks, while the latter—not “something of value” in any case—never did.

More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities.

Thomas Jefferson impounded funds appropriated for gunboat purchases, Dwight Eisenhower impounded funds for antiballistic-missile production, John F. Kennedy impounded money for the B-70 bomber, and Richard Nixon impounded billions for highways and urban programs. Congress attempted to curtail this power with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but it authorizes the president to defer spending until the expiration of the fiscal year or until budgetary authority lapses, neither of which had occurred in the Ukraine case.

Presidents often delay or refuse foreign aid as diplomatic leverage, even when Congress has authorized the funds. Disbursing foreign aid—and withholding it—has historically been one of the president’s most potent foreign-policy tools, and Congress cannot impair it. Lyndon B. Johnson used the promise of financial aid to strong-arm the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea to send troops to Vietnam. The General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) concluded that this constituted “quid pro quo assistance.” In 2013, Barack Obama, in a phone conversation with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, said he would slash hundreds of millions of dollars in military and economic assistance until Cairo cooperated with U.S. counterterrorism goals. The Obama administration also withheld millions in foreign aid and imposed visa restrictions on African countries, including Uganda and Nigeria, that failed to protect gay rights.

Further, there is credible evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election at the request of senior Obama administration officials. The Justice Department is investigating this as part of its broader inquiry—now a criminal investigation—into efforts to target the Trump campaign in 2016 and beyond. It is certainly legitimate for the president to ask Ukraine to cooperate.

In addition, the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” implies broad discretion to investigate and prosecute crimes, even if they involve his political rivals. Investigating Americans or Ukrainians who might have violated domestic or foreign law—and seeking the assistance of other nations with such probes, pursuant to mutual legal-assistance treaties—cannot form a legitimate basis for impeachment of a president.

It’s legally irrelevant that a criminal investigation may be politically beneficial to the president. Virtually all exercises of constitutional discretion by a president affect his political interests. It would be absurd to suggest that a president’s pursuit of arms-control agreements, trade deals or climate treaties are impeachable offenses because they benefit the president or his party in an upcoming election.

Using a private party such as Rudy Giuliani to carry out diplomatic missions is neither a crime nor an abuse of power. While the State Department’s mandarins have always lamented intrusions on their bureaucratic turf, numerous U.S. presidents have tapped people to conduct foreign-policy initiatives whose job—whether in the government or private sectors—did not include foreign-policy experience or responsibility. George Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate the “Jay Treaty” with Britain. Woodrow Wilson used American journalist Lincoln Steffens and Swedish Communist Karl Kilbom as special envoys to negotiate diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. A close Wilson friend, Edward House, held no office but effectively served as chief U.S. negotiator at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I.

Nor is it illegal or abusive to give a diplomatic assignment to a government official whose formal institutional responsibilities do not include foreign affairs, such as the energy secretary. JFK relied on Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to negotiate with Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis.

Although the impeachment inquiry has been conducted in secret, what we know suggests it has become a free-ranging exploration of Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy substance and process, with the committees summoning numerous State Department witnesses. Congress could properly undertake such an inquiry using its oversight authority, but by claiming that it is proceeding with an impeachment inquiry, it has forfeited this option.

If the House impeaches Mr. Trump because it disapproves of a lawful exercise of his presidential authority, it will in effect have accused him of maladministration. The Framers rejected that amorphous concept because it would have allowed impeachment for mere political disagreements, rendering the president a ward of Congress and destroying the executive’s status as an independent, coequal branch of government. If the House impeaches on such grounds and the Senate concludes it has jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial, it should focus first and foremost not on the details of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy, but on the legal question of whether the conduct alleged is an impeachable offense.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835: “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.” What House Democrats are doing is not only unfair to Mr. Trump and a threat to all his successors. It is an attempt to overrule the constitutional process for selecting the president and thus subvert American democracy itself. For the sake of the Constitution, it must be decisively rejected. If Mr. Trump’s policies are unpopular or offensive, the remedy is up to the people, not Congress.

Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. She is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.
Title: MY supports President Trump
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2019, 08:18:34 AM
Everyone here knows the high regard I have for Michael Yon.  Here he is today, reporting from Hong Kong.

 I've been so busy with the Hong Kong insurgency -- massively important -- that the massive attack on President Trump has almost slipped in like an asteroid.

The White House is standing up to China. Vice President Mike Pence just openly and in clear words stood up for Taiwan and Hong Kong, and about making other concrete moves to defend the United States and our allies.

If you know any Hong Kongers, ask them how China has been waging an immigration invasion to overtake peaceful Hong Kongers. The Chinese hand is flooding the Hong Kong aquarium with Pooh Fish. The lessons are too obvious.

The speech by Vice President Mike Pence was fantastic. It resonated very favorably with me, and with every Hong Konger I know who saw it.

I do not like President Trump and likely never will, but he is fighting very important fights and is smashing the Chinese Communist Party. I've seen military leaders I did not personally like but who were winners, and so I would support them. They were defending my country.

The only generals you have seen me attack were losing in their battle spaces. (McChrystal and Menard.) I had nothing against them other than losing.

President Trump is doing something that recent Presidents ranging back a couple of decades have not done. Vigorously fight back and stop apologizing for being a bad ass.

We've got the Chinese Communist Party on the ropes. This is no time to take out a President when he is smashing communist ribs.

Never thought I would say it, but now I am defending the Presidency of Donald Trump. He's beating CCP. Get out of his way. Support winning.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2019, 10:32:52 AM
Don't agree with this 100% but it is McCarthy, so I post it here:


https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/stop-claiming-no-quid-pro-quo/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202019-10-27&utm_term=WIR-Smart

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/the-presidents-best-ukraine-defense-not-an-impeachable-offense/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIR%20-%20Sunday%202019-10-27&utm_term=WIR-Smart
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on October 27, 2019, 12:23:13 PM
quote author=Crafty_Dog
Don't agree with this 100% but it is McCarthy, so I post it here:
--------------------

I was thinking the same thing.  He is someone I trust to know more about it than I do.

Quid pro quo: yes,  Impeachable: No - That is a different argument than where we were a couple of days ago.  Still I agree it is not impeachable to pursue investigation of public corruption no matter that it may or may not lead to a political opponent.  And if it is worthwhile national purpose, then it is appropriate to tie US funds to the effort. 

If the opposite were true, can't investigate or target political opponents for any reason,  we would have to lock up the whole Comey, McCabe, Mueller gang - even before we find prosecutorial misconduct.
Title: Re: Rush makes the same point
Post by: DougMacG on October 27, 2019, 01:19:43 PM
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/10/24/did-you-know-senators-cant-campaign-during-an-impeachment-trial/?fbclid=IwAR1wiyjyX-8zu7Mp0E9EYoyYC4qC8R7ZCjIWTU22rOvoNNJ4k9T3ygp1BcU

Hard to say what that rule is but the optics are bad.  If they recuse themselves they are shirking their current responsibilities for political gain and if they participate it all looks political - because it is.  The constitution says 2/3rds majority "of those Senators present".  Does that mean for the vote or for the  whole trial.  I don't think they can just mail it in.  And there are 5 of them!  Every time one is missing, Republicans in the majority can vote to postpone the proceedings - until it goes past the election. 

Trump is killing terrorists, making new trade agreements, growing the economy, investigating corruption.  Democrats are doing this.  They don't wish to run straight-on with their agenda of implementing Venezuelan policies in the US.
Title: Spengler: I killed my parents, mercy because I am an orphan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2019, 05:25:15 PM
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/i-killed-my-parents-and-now-i-ask-for-mercy-on-the-grounds-that-im-an-orphan/?fbclid=IwAR0C3SUYvU-EMXa_CDNpWn7asxRpobZcPgbVUUL0i8iuesosrtLZTEc5hCM
Title: AMcC: No basis for Barr recusal
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2019, 09:34:00 PM
second

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/there-is-no-basis-for-barr-to-recuse-himself-over-ukraine/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202019-10-28&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart

Title: Upcoming witness sounds dangerous
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2019, 10:08:19 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/Alexander-Vindman-trump-impeachment.html?fbclid=IwAR0OgMMIL5UGo5CTF2dr-pNpkoOu-zRztTYePt5IcyWoxRZZP0fKcBOzpY4
Title: Pelosi senses a trap
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2019, 10:17:42 PM
Third post

By William McGurn
Oct. 28, 2019 6:48 pm ET
Opinion: House Impeachment Vote Follows Senate Resolution Condemning Process
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT


Opinion: House Impeachment Vote Follows Senate Resolution Condemning Process
Opinion: House Impeachment Vote Follows Senate Resolution Condemning Process
Main Street: On October 24, 2019, Senator Lindsey Graham tabled a resolution condemning the House of Representatives' impeachment process. A few days later, House Democrats announced a vote on an impeachment inquiry. Image: Alex Brandon/Associated Press
In Nancy Pelosi’s defiance of all House precedent, her dubious reliance on selective leaks of secret testimony to make her case, and her deference to Democrats who have been looking to impeach Donald Trump from the moment he was sworn in, the speaker now stands atop the most unprincipled presidential impeachment in U.S. history.

Her surprise decision Monday to call a vote that “affirms” the continuing impeachment investigation and will set procedures going forward indicates she has realized this unfairness works to Mr. Trump’s advantage.

Having unleashed the dogs of impeachment, Mrs. Pelosi now has no choice but to get it done or risk demoralizing and splitting her caucus. So impeachment it is, by hook or by crook, and the highhanded way she is proceeding—with no authorizing vote, no rights for the president’s counsel, no access to key documents members are entitled to—is a feature, not a bug.

But it comes with a price. By trampling on impeachment norms, House Democrats are making their case harder in the Senate, where they would need 20 GOP votes to convict. Sen. Lindsey Graham exposed this vulnerability last week with a resolution—co-sponsored by 50 Republican senators—condemning the House impeachment process. Even Republicans who don’t like the president can unite on this.

Democrats counter that Republicans are complaining about process because they can’t address the substance. But process is how you get to substance. Can anyone really evaluate, for example, the testimony of William Taylor, the former acting ambassador to Ukraine, without hearing how he answered questions under cross-examination?

If Mrs. Pelosi were confident in what she’s doing, she could take the White House refusal to honor Democratic subpoenas to court. That’s what the Judiciary Committee did to get grand-jury material from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, back when House Democrats thought obstruction of justice was their path to impeachment.

Democrats have since moved on, but on Friday Judge Beryl Howell invited more judicial review when she ruled that the House is entitled to grand-jury information because “impeachment trials . . . constitute judicial proceedings.” Justice is appealing, which opens the door for a higher court to consider not only Judge Howell’s determination about impeachment being a judicial proceeding but her dismissal of a more fundamental argument by the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Doug Collins, that the whole inquiry is illicit.

Mr. Collins notes that while the Constitution doesn’t mandate a vote to authorize impeachment, it gives impeachment authority to the House, not to the speaker. The House has not delegated this authority the way it has delegated other authorities to other committees.

It’s telling that even now Mrs. Pelosi is not threatening to take the impeachment subpoenas to court. Maybe this will change after her resolution passes. But going to court would still be a problem because, rather than insisting on taking as long as necessary to get to the truth, House Democrats have made clear they’ve already made their decision on impeachment and aim to deliver by Christmas.

Which leads back to the president. Not only does the Star Chamber approach make a Senate conviction unlikely, a failure to remove Mr. Trump from office will certainly mean that he will make the Democrats’ behavior an issue in next year’s election.

Some Democrats appreciate the danger. Several times since Mr. Trump was sworn in, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler spoke of the high bar for overturning a presidential election. Would-be impeachers, he warned, would do well to recognize that the court of public opinion matters most.

“I’m talking about the voters, people who voted for Trump,” he told Roll Call back in November. “Do you think that the case is so stark, that the offenses are so terrible and the proof so clear, that once you’ve laid it all out you will have convinced an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for Trump, who like him, that you had no choice? That you had to do it?”

By contrast, Mrs. Pelosi has not only thrown out the Nadler standard, she’s also thrown out Mr. Nadler—even though impeachment traditionally has been the province of the Judiciary Committee. Instead, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is leading the Democrats’ impeachment effort. If the hope is to build a credible public case that even Mr. Trump’s supporters cannot deny, it’s an odd choice to make the face of impeachment a man who had falsely assured the nation he’d seen “more than circumstantial evidence” the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia.

Yes, the polls show what Mrs. Pelosi is banking on: clear movement for impeachment. But when broken down by party, as FiveThirtyEight.com does, the polls reveal a polarized America, with 83.3% of Democrats supporting impeachment against only 11.4% of the GOP voters Mr. Nadler said must be persuaded first.

This won’t stop the House from impeaching Mr. Trump. But no one ought to be surprised if, as Mrs. Pelosi seems to have sensed, the increasingly manifest unfairness of the way Democrats are going about it ends up, in the long-term, redounding to Mr. Trump’s advantage.
Title: Vindman testifies key details left out of transcript
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2019, 05:59:51 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/vindman-testimony-alleges-white-house-left-key-details-out-of-trump-zelensky-call-transcript/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=18473830
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment Inquiry Vote
Post by: DougMacG on October 30, 2019, 06:27:05 AM
I wrote to my "moderate" Democrat, swing district Congressman this morning and urged him to vote against the impeachment inquiry vote and suggested he instead focus on growing the economy, shrinking poverty and eliminating emissions.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on October 30, 2019, 08:55:45 AM
'Based on the evidence the House has made public, impeaching Trump is a baseless, meritless, reckless assault on our democracy.'
...
"Why doesn’t [Pelosi] just step aside and let Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar run the party?
https://nypost.com/2019/10/29/goodwin-history-will-not-be-kind-to-nancy-pelosi/

When you hear a never-Trumper or anti-Trumper say they favor impeachment, meaning removal without an election, the clarifying question back needs to be: You favor a civil war over settling this in an election?

Of course they aren't serious.  They don't want Pence to be President.  They don't have support of 67 Senators.  They don't want the parts of the Senate trial that involve Trump calling his witnesses or his defense lawyers cross-examining theirs.  cf.  The Defense calls Adam Schiff, under oath, with no time limit, and a fair judge to over-rule objections.  "The witness will answer the question."

Meanwhile 5 Democrat Senators running for President will sit in Senate Chambers for months while primaries go on and Biden and Trump circle the nation. 

Delay the Dem primaries over impeachment?  Delay their divided convention?  I love it.

Needless to say, this isn't going to happen.  Nancy Pelosi just doesn't know how to stop a freight train she isn't conducting.
Title: Factually weak impeachment will alter nature of our government
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2019, 01:37:07 PM
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/30/factually_weak_impeachment_will_alter_the_nature_of_our_government__141612.html
Title: Whistleblower exposed?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 31, 2019, 12:07:21 AM
A saavy friend sent me this:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on October 31, 2019, 03:58:30 AM
Well, well, well.  The putative person claiming to a be a whistleblower was White House liaison with Ms. Chalupa from the DNC and was moved out of his NSC position for leaking.  No wonder he claims to be a whistleblower.  He already has one strike against him on his record.
Title: From Rick's post above re Alexandra Chalupa
Post by: ccp on October 31, 2019, 08:28:48 AM
From "Conservapedia':


https://www.conservapedia.com/Alexandra_Chalupa

This 33 yo mid level government employee surely did not work alone.

His name will be all over the airways very soon.
I put him in the category of John W. Booth.  Who were his accomplices?

Title: CIA arbiters of "truth"
Post by: ccp on November 01, 2019, 05:39:17 AM
justice and the DC deep state way (the American way)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/31/former-cia-acting-director-on-impeachment-inquiry-thank-god-for-the-deep-state/
Title: New Yorker: Hobbes Act violation?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 01, 2019, 01:01:56 PM
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/in-his-dealings-with-ukraine-did-donald-trump-commit-a-crime?source=EDT_NYR_EDIT_NEWSLETTER_0_imagenewsletter_Daily_ZZ&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_110119&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d3fa3f92a40469e2d85c&cndid=50142053&esrc=&mbid=&utm_term=TNY_Daily
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 01, 2019, 04:52:23 PM
There is no question that the US President may cooperate and communicate with a country like Ukraine in the investigation of potential corruption that involves the two countries.  There is no question that the US President may attach a condition of cooperating with us on corruption in order to receive aid.  As I understand it, they are required by treaty to cooperate with us on this type of investigation.

Why on earth would anyone think the President and the country lose that right if it a competing candidate for President is potentially involved.

Adam Schiff [falsely] said, “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. ..."

Jeffrey Toobin article:  “The idea behind the case would be Trump conditioned the release of military aid to Ukraine on the President of Ukraine coming across with the dirt on the Biden family,”
---
One small problem, we have the transcript and that isn't what happened.  He said the name Biden in the context of a wider probe that both ends of the phone call were already well aware of it.  He gave no indication that he wanted the information on Biden or anyone else to be 'dirt'.  That is in the mind of the beholder.  He may have wanted the Americans to be cleared in the investigation.  Either way, it wasn't in the call.
---
Toobin continued:  "There are problems with this theory, starting with the President’s constitutional prerogatives to conduct foreign policy under Article II. Trump, or his lawyers, could argue that such a case would criminalize the give-and-take of negotiation with foreign governments. International negotiations, by their very nature, involve exchanges of things of value. Quid pro quos are not only legal; they are the goal of most such interactions. The response to this argument would be that the terms of these sorts of negotiations must involve the national interest, ..."

Is what Trump wanted from Ukraine, cooperation on investigations that included the 2016 election, arguably in the national interest?  Most certainly yes.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on November 01, 2019, 05:16:51 PM
*Adam Schiff [falsely] said, “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent*

The only place I heard this come from is the Democrats

totally made up
no biggy


Title: What do scholars say about impeachment power?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 02, 2019, 06:41:54 PM
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-do-scholars-say-about-impeachment-power?fbclid=IwAR0BKiAVxJXU0h8xYy7XBhtqZKGPnvEJTT4Aim1hrb91dtRnLyOUHlur1Eo
Title: The Constitution on Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2019, 09:13:52 AM


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15120/weaponizing-impeachment

contrast

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-do-scholars-say-about-impeachment-power?fbclid=IwAR3Q0xi5YQy2N9SYAS_rkNnZrLBHMTnDxtvNlek1_A4sDG4rs2So1KMGBBc
Title: Seisenbrenner and Chabot: The Clinton Impeachment was Fair
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2019, 09:29:08 AM
second post

The Clinton Impeachment Was Fair
We were on the House prosecution team. Unlike Pelosi and Schiff, we safeguarded due process.
By Jim Sensenbrenner and Steve Chabot
Nov. 3, 2019 3:40 pm ET

Tensions ran high 20 years ago as we stood in the well of the Senate before Chief Justice William Rehnquist, all 100 senators and the nation. As House impeachment managers, we presented our case against President Clinton. We were somber but confident, knowing that we had afforded Mr. Clinton every due-process right to defend himself.

Now we find ourselves on the verge of another presidential impeachment. But this time the process is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. For the past two months, House Democrats, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, have conducted a sham investigation with predetermined conclusions. It will do unthinkable damage to the credibility of the House and to the nation.

Since President Trump took the oath of office, Mr. Schiff has led a quest to overturn the 2016 election. We have both worked with Mr. Schiff on the Judiciary Committee, and one of us (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has managed two judicial impeachments (of Samuel B. Kent and G. Thomas Porteous Jr. ) alongside him. While in those cases he was fair and reasonable, here he has let his blind hatred of the president poison his conduct and destroy his credibility.

For more than two years, Mr. Schiff misled the public about having clear evidence that Mr Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. Special counsel Robert Mueller found no such evidence. Mr. Schiff then set his eyes on the next “scandal.” A seemingly too-good-to-be-true report appeared, accusing the president of improper action. Mr. Schiff took to cable news to propagate the new narrative, but it soon began to crumble. We learned that the biased “whistleblower” had contacted Mr. Schiff’s committee before filing his report, and Mr. Schiff lied about it.

Nevertheless, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decreed the House to have begun an impeachment inquiry and Mr. Schiff launched three weeks of closed-door hearings. He played judge and jury, selectively leaking private testimony to fuel a smear campaign. In blatant disregard of congressional practice, he has prevented elected members from asking certain questions of his “star witnesses.”

The American people saw through this charade, and Mrs. Pelosi brought the rules for this process up for a vote last week. But it’s too little and too late.

The rules resolution falls woefully short of the Constitution’s due-process standard. Every American has the right to hear all evidence presented against him, face his accuser directly, and mount a defense. We made sure to afford Mr. Clinton these rights in 1998-99.

The president’s counsel must have the right to participate in all impeachment proceedings. The congressional minority must have an equal right to call witnesses, subpoena documents and cross-examine witnesses.

Last week’s resolution is an absolute failure to protect those rights. It permits Mr. Schiff to continue with his closed-door depositions, and it grants him sole authority to decide which information is relevant, which witnesses can testify and which evidence will be transferred to the Judiciary Committee.

When the Intelligence Committee turns over the proceedings to the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Jerry Nadler will then have the authority to deny the president’s counsel access to evidence, the ability to cross-examine witnesses and the full ability to participate in other ways. It’s laughable to claim that’s fair or impartial.

Americans should be concerned about the denial of fundamental constitutional rights to the president of the United States. If it can happen to him, whom can’t it happen to?

From day one, the Democrats have had their sights set on impeachment and have charted a process that could only lead to that end. By denying due process to this president, Democrats have delegitimized the House and its constitutional powers, and have done irreparable damage to the country.

Messrs. Sensenbrenner and Chabot, both Republicans, represent Wisconsin’s Fifth and Ohio’s First congressional districts, respectively.

Title: Extreme clarity!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2019, 12:11:35 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/bureaucrats-hurt-feelings-on-foreign-policy-dont-justify-impeachment/
Title: Re: Extreme clarity!
Post by: DougMacG on November 04, 2019, 03:18:57 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/bureaucrats-hurt-feelings-on-foreign-policy-dont-justify-impeachment/

"Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Remember when Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and still maintain his support? Suppose a candidate for office did shoot somebody and the only witness was a Russian national who then hopped a plane back to Moscow."

And what if the only people who cared about having it investigated happened to be political opponents. 
-----
Separate from the foreign government involvement, Democrats want the IRS to investigate Donald Trump's tax returns - because he is a political opponent.  What if the phone call was Pres. Trump calling the IRS commissioner, asking him for a favor, to investigate Americans with family in high places here - people who served on foreign boards including the Bidens.  The impeachment effort would be the same.

Why don't we just have an up or down vote on having two sets of rules?
Title: school records would be more important than fling pay offs
Post by: ccp on November 05, 2019, 05:50:40 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-tax-returns-second-circuit-rules-against-president/

I don't get how a Democrat State government can make it illegal to pay off a few consensual women , who gladly took the money I might add,
near a campaign.

Brock never released his school records and did everything he could to conceal his socialist background

That is ok
but to pay off a couple women is somehow a major crime.

Where is it law a President or candidate must release tax returns?

answer - nowhere - except in Democrat NY - for no other reason than to get Trump.

Title: Morris: Ignore Impeachment Polls
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 05, 2019, 09:39:16 AM
Before he was an expert on everything, Morris was a pollster.

http://www.dickmorris.com/most-impeachment-polls-are-wrong-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Title: This is really not good
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 05, 2019, 08:54:34 PM
From Pravda on the Hudson:

Welcome back to the Impeachment Briefing. Today, a central figure in the investigation changed his story, saying he had personally delivered a quid pro quo message from the White House to Ukraine.


What happened today


•   Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the E.U., revised the testimony he gave to investigators last month, admitting he told a top Ukraine official that U.S. military aid was contingent on the country’s publicly committing to investigations requested by President Trump.

•   Mr. Sondland said testimony by other witnesses had “refreshed my recollection.” His revised statement, along with a transcript of his testimony, was released today by impeachment investigators. Lawmakers also released the testimony of Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine.

•   Mr. Volker’s transcript shows that, via text, he sent a Ukrainian official the script that the White House wanted President Volodymyr Zelensky to read, including announcing an investigation into Burisma (the energy company that employed Hunter Biden) and a conspiracy theory about the 2016 U.S. election.

•   Lev Parnas, one of the Rudy Giuliani associates who was indicted on campaign finance charges, agreed to cooperate with impeachment investigators yesterday. Mr. Parnas was deeply involved in efforts to oust the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.







Why Sondland ‘refreshed’ his testimony


I asked my colleagues Michael Crowley, who wrote a profile of Mr. Sondland a few weeks ago, and Mike Schmidt, who wrote today about the changes in Mr. Sondland’s story.


Why did he change his answers? Did he actually perjure himself?


CROWLEY: Mr. Sondland was always something of a fair-weather friend to Donald Trump. Remember that during the 2016 campaign, Mr. Sondland backed out of a fund-raiser after Mr. Trump attacked a Gold Star family. When Mr. Trump won, Mr. Sondland suddenly became an outspoken advocate for him. Now the winds have shifted again, and in a way that could even involve legal jeopardy — and at a minimum severe embarrassment — for Mr. Sondland. So it now appears that he may be rethinking his loyalties to Donald Trump for the third time in a little more than three years.


Why is Mr. Sondland’s word important at this moment in the investigation?


SCHMIDT: The White House’s initial argument that there was no quid pro quo was based on what Mr. Sondland had said in a text message. His testimony showed that that was truly just a talking point. So hearing Mr. Sondland confirm the quid pro quo enhances the credibility of arguably the most important anecdote in this investigation, which other witnesses have described. Now we have the person directly involved in it saying it under oath.


CROWLEY: His revised testimony is a particularly serious blow to the president. Mr. Sondland is not part of a “Deep State.” He’s not a “radical Democrat.” He’s a political appointee who gave a million dollars to the president’s inaugural. It’s really hard for Mr. Trump and his defenders to explain this away.







Rudy’s role in the transcripts


 




The two witness testimonies released today provided new insight into the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy — particularly the outsize role of Mr. Giuliani, whose name appears more than 200 times in the documents. Here’s what we learned.


•   Mr. Sondland told impeachment investigators that he assumed Mr. Giuliani’s campaign to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens was improper and illegal. The allegations Mr. Giuliani was pushing “kept getting more insidious,” Mr. Sondland said, but his diplomacy goals in Ukraine were dependent on making sure Mr. Giuliani was “satisfied.”


•   Mr. Sondland described a circle of top officials exasperated by Mr. Giuliani’s involvement. When he asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about whether Mr. Giuliani had to be involved in Ukraine policy, Mr. Pompeo rolled his eyes and said, “Yes, it’s something we have to deal with.”


•   Mr. Volker told investigators that Mr. Giuliani planted the idea in Mr. Trump’s mind that Ukraine was out to get him. “He gave the example of hearing from Rudy Giuliani that they’re all corrupt, they’re all terrible people, that they were — they tried to take me down — meaning the president in the 2016 election,” Mr. Volker told investigators.

•   Mr. Volker also said that he met with Mr. Zelensky in early July and warned him that Mr. Giuliani’s involvement was problematic. And at a breakfast Mr. Volker had with Mr. Giuliani days before the July 25 call, he told Mr. Giuliani that the negative information he heard about Mr. Biden was misleading and “not credible.”


Title: quid pro quo or not
Post by: ccp on November 06, 2019, 05:51:47 AM
Dems can twist all their legal gamesmanship and word and arguments in any, or all directions they want.

Bottom line to DNC, CNN, NYT, WP, Dem lawyers, Ivy league profs:

you are not going to get your way
screw you.
Trump stays!

comprende!

So I don't give a hoot.
So vote impeachment get it over with and stop milking the same arguments over and over again - most of the US is sick of it one way or the other
and 40 % ain't going to budge. 

Gee and they can't figure out  why.  Why would we accept such a man . Duh.
Title: Re: This is really not good
Post by: DougMacG on November 06, 2019, 07:32:43 AM
Andy McCarthy warned supporters recently to drop the 'no quid pro quo' defense of Trump and stick with argument that nothing happened here that rises to the level of impeachable offense.

There is nothing wrong with pressuring a country to cooperate with the US in an investigation that goes after corruption that affected our country - even if that corruption includes the Bidens.  For one thing, maybe further investigation vindicates the Bidens.  There is nothing wrong with using our billions in aid to pressure them in what our commander in chief reasonably believes in in our national interest.

It is Adam Schiff who actually had this spot on.  IF the message was for Ukraine to manufacture false evidence to discredit or destroy a Trump opponent, that is what would cross the line of using his official position of power for personal political gain that is not in the nation's best interest.  [Reminds me of what the DOJ/CIA/FBI did to Trump under Obama.]

That is not what happened here.

The more real the corruption was, the more justified Trump was in pressuring their cooperation.  Therefore in a Senate trial, the defense will be allowed all the time and opportunity necessary to delve into all that was known about that corruption.  I think is that where this strange work Giuliani seems to have been doing comes in.  Prove the corruption and you acquit the President.  More importantly, what did he know about the corruption case at the relevant times in the accusations tells us whether aggressively pursuing their cooperation was arguably justified.

After all the Russia collusion drama, preceded by sexual predator charges, followed by white supremacist charges...  it is a very strange gamble that Democrats a betting their entire existence on this petty charge.  Can even their own supporters follow the gymnastics of it?

What if they come across real stuff right after this ordeal, do they run through the whole thing again?
Title: Re: quid pro quo or not
Post by: DougMacG on November 06, 2019, 08:22:49 AM
Dems can twist all their legal gamesmanship and word and arguments in any, or all directions they want.

Bottom line to DNC, CNN, NYT, WP, Dem lawyers, Ivy league profs:

you are not going to get your way
screw you.
Trump stays!

comprende!

So I don't give a hoot.
So vote impeachment get it over with and stop milking the same arguments over and over again - most of the US is sick of it one way or the other
and 40 % ain't going to budge. 

Gee and they can't figure out  why.  Why would we accept such a man . Duh.

Dems need to rush this charge against the clock now or miss their opportunity.  But the more they rush it, the more they screw it up.  Threes years of trying to impeach and they have only had the transcript of this non-event phone call for a month along with a bunch of 'witnesses' who heard about the phone call. Don't they have to end the investigation in order to present the findings, but the goal was endless investigations and smear, not cross examination of accusers in a fair trial. They need to keep the charges simple [The high crime was ____.] but leave something out and they can't just go back and add it; this is a serious process.

What Dems really need is a way to back out of this gracefully without damage to themselves.  They need to say we exposed him but we trust the voters to finish this.  The case against Trump is larger than this incident.

A vote in the House is a nightmare for red and swing district Democrats.  A trial in the Senate will be a nightmare for all Democrats and especially for those [5 at this point] running for President and the one [Biden] who is at the center of the corruption.  The trial will be long and detailed and go places not intended by the House managers, such as calling Adam Schiff as a fact witness.  Meanwhile Trump will be out governing and holding rallies while his Democrat rivals are grounded.  The only ones excused from the circus will be the President of the United States and the mayor of small town in Indiana.

If a vote fails in the House, Trump is vindicated.  If the vote passes in the House without all Democrats and  without a single Republican vote, Trump is vindicated.  If acquitted in the Senate, trump is vindicated, and if removed in the Senate, Pence becomes President and Trump is still on the ballot and holding rallies.  But f they damage him sufficiently and wait for the election, Biden or Warren have their best chance.  [Isn't that what Crafty said the goal was?]  But how do they back out now after driving down this one-way, dead end street?
Title: DT jr "outs " whisteblower
Post by: ccp on November 06, 2019, 03:49:12 PM
supposedly

he outs what has already effectively been "out".

yet I cannot find it on any news site
 :x

but this whole MSM issue is a joke anyway
like Dershowitz said on Fox a few nights ago
the name of the whistle blower is already known by everyone in DC

Obviously the LEFT is worried about the partisan nature of these people or they wouldn't be trying to keep it a secret.

And of course we have the mitt romneys using the losing formula of playing by gentlemen's rules.

Sorry but I am not concerned for his safety
a bunch of anonymous people are not going to bring down a President I voted for and will again .

I want to know who they are .  Even more so if they are mid level government employees etc
Title: some legaleeze on whistle blowers
Post by: ccp on November 06, 2019, 04:50:55 PM
from east coast pravda:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/whistleblower-complaint.html

"These laws were written with job reprisals in mind. They were not written for, and do not cover, the highly unusual situation in which a president uses his public platform to denigrate and vaguely threaten a whistle-blower."
Title: Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep Sta
Post by: G M on November 06, 2019, 07:28:55 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384184.php

Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep State Will Impeach Trump and His Friends at CNN Will Play a Key Role
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2019, 04:36:50 AM
" .Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep State Will Impeach Trump and His Friends at CNN Will Play a Key Role"

I would highly suspect that if we had inside people "whistleblowing " all the dirt on any and all Democrats we would be seeing President , Governor , Senators and Congressman being thrown out of office every day.

Title: Re: Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep Sta
Post by: DougMacG on November 07, 2019, 04:42:01 AM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384184.php

Fake Whistleblower's Lawyer in 2017: "The coup has started," Brags That Deep State Will Impeach Trump and His Friends at CNN Will Play a Key Role

The Client Attorney Privilege is abused when it is the lawyer who hires the client.
Title: My argument exactly
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2019, 02:10:12 PM
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/quid-pro-what.php
Title: Schiff accidentally releases name of whistleblower
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 07, 2019, 02:26:53 PM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/oops-adam-schiff-accidentally-leaks-name-of-anti-trump-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-in-bill-taylors-transcript/

 :evil: :-D :evil:
Title: Whistlefaker's attorney Mark Zaid a big fan of Disney "actresses"
Post by: G M on November 07, 2019, 05:11:04 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384193.php

LGBTQP?
Title: enjoy your holidays
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2019, 06:00:40 PM
"  http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384193.php "

"LGBTQP?"

probably hangs with Don and Anderson.

Rush earlier today was talking how the Dems want everyone to talk about impeachment  over Thanksgiving ; he was a bit off =>

now it is Christmas = later it will be

then it will be past the New Year

dirtballs......

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/democrat-impeachment-timeline/index.html
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 07, 2019, 07:42:33 PM
P = Pedaphile
Someday Leftists will accuse conservatives of not being tolerant of the entire LGBTQP spectrum.  With Clinton and Epstein we could add the R for rape as an alternative sexual orientation.  Who are we to judge? Put me down as close minded and intolerant.
Title: Was Eric Ciamarella a prior leaker to the NYT?
Post by: ccp on November 08, 2019, 03:45:55 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/alleged-whistleblower-cited-in-mueller-report-for-emails-leaked-to-nyt/
Title: JW: Obama White House logs detail meetings of CIA's Ciaramella
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 08, 2019, 06:32:24 PM
Whoa!!! :-o :-o :-o :x :x :x

   
White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella
 
 


We have conducted an in-depth analysis of Obama-era White House visitor logs, and we have learned a good deal about the people who controversial CIA employee Eric Ciaramella met with while assigned to the White House.

Ciaramella reportedly was detailed to the Obama White House in 2015 and returned to the CIA during the Trump administration in 2017.

Real Clear Investigations named Ciaramella as possibly being the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings against President Trump. As reported by the Examiner, Fox News’ legal analyst Gregg Jarrett indicated that a key takeaway was the “reported direct relationship” Ciaramella had with former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan and national security adviser Susan Rice, as well as the “Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”

The visitor logs also reveal Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor hired by the DNC during the 2016 election, who coordinated with Ukrainians to investigate President Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, visited the White House 27 times.

The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White House:

•   Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, “took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC).”
•   Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
•   Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
•   Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
•   Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
•   Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department’s policy planning staff where he specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
•   James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama’s Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
•   Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with the Clinton-funded dossier. Judicial Watch also released documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department’s “urgent” gathering of classified Russia investigation information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
•   Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
•   Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9, 2015.
•   Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That meeting was on June 2, 2015.
•   Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016. Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work for the City of Chicago Treasurer’s office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.

Spreadsheets of visitor records are grouped alphabetically by last name and available below:
A – Coi
Coig – Gra
Graz – Lau
Laug – Pad
Padd – Sor
Sorr – Zyz

Our analysis of these Obama White House visitor logs raises obvious additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump. Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs.

Title: FaceHugger works to protect CIA/Soros operative
Post by: G M on November 08, 2019, 06:56:13 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/facebook-scrubs-all-references-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella

Funny how this seems to show they are all on the same team.
Title: Re: Whistlefaker's attorney Mark Zaid a big fan of Disney "actresses"
Post by: G M on November 08, 2019, 07:02:02 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/384193.php

LGBTQP?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/whistleblower-attorney-bragged-about-getting-security-clearances-guys-child-porn-issues

Interesting statement from Zaid.

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 09, 2019, 11:11:02 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/07/snopes-confirms-dems-tried-impeach-every-elected-gop-president-eisenhower/
Title: Taibbit: We're in a permanent coup
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 10, 2019, 08:40:55 AM
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup?fbclid=IwAR3XaZNTg-U0KO6ArEBSStX7vV5emX2wHIodCS5BPsds_sGz53YB5T5p25w
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 10, 2019, 08:43:55 AM
Some thoughts of mine regarding the impeachment attempt:

Back when I was in law school, one of the things that was drummed into us was the importance of framing the question presented to the benefit of our client.
Defining investigating Biden & Son as "seeking dirt on a political rival" is an example as such but it is a misdirect. It is simple: Biden does not get immunity for his actions by running for the Presidency.

The question presented is whether even if Biden were not running, there is plenty of good reason to look into his son and him and therfore it is perfectly proper for the chief legal officer of America, the President, to approach the Ukrainian head of state in this regard-- as Vice President Biden was the point man for American foreign policy in Ukraine and there is no legitimate reason for his son to be making over $3,000,000 with Burisma.

Add in the Biden modus operandi shown with Hunter's massive $1,500,000,000 (!!!) deal with China as well as the deal with Kerry's stepson with China in a dual purpose company accompanied by extraordinary American flacidity as the Chinese took military control of the South China Sea (where one third of the world's trade sails)

For good measure throw in the previous Ukrainian government's assist to the Clinton campaign and there is plenty of reason to suspect skullduggery and plenty of reason for President Trump to say "Would you look into this please?"
Title: Moyer's: Trumps brainwashed followers of their master
Post by: ccp on November 11, 2019, 06:32:39 AM
If only a few "wake up" and see the threat to our nation :

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-moyers-impeachment-cnn-survival-052619799.html

Of course , we should just give in to the Democrats.

For the good of the country and the world and "democracy"
with threat of Trump far worse than WW 2, Cold war, and everything else in history .
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 11, 2019, 07:40:18 AM
Some thoughts of mine regarding the impeachment attempt:

Back when I was in law school, one of the things that was drummed into us was the importance of framing the question presented to the benefit of our client.
Defining investigating Biden & Son as "seeking dirt on a political rival" is an example as such but it is a misdirect. It is simple: Biden does not get immunity for his actions by running for the Presidency.

The question presented is whether even if Biden were not running, there is plenty of good reason to look into his son and him and therfore it is perfectly proper for the chief legal officer of America, the President, to approach the Ukrainian head of state in this regard-- as Vice President Biden was the point man for American foreign policy in Ukraine and there is no legitimate reason for his son to be making over $3,000,000 with Burisma.

Add in the Biden modus operandi shown with Hunter's massive $1,500,000,000 (!!!) deal with China as well as the deal with Kerry's stepson with China in a dual purpose company accompanied by extraordinary American flacidity as the Chinese took military control of the South China Sea (where one third of the world's trade sails)

For good measure throw in the previous Ukrainian government's assist to the Clinton campaign and there is plenty of reason to suspect skullduggery and plenty of reason for President Trump to say "Would you look into this please?"

Well said.  "It is simple: Biden does not get immunity for his actions by running for the Presidency."

..."the importance of framing the question presented to the benefit of our client."  Beyond "seeking dirt on a political rival", Schiff entered 'make up dirt on a rival' into the record and the narrative.  It just doesn't happen to be true.

Their were plenty of reasons in the national interest to push for this investigation.  Using our leverage in our interest is partly what the aid is for.

Both sides are having a hard time framing their message.  We hear quid pro quo, like we heard "collusion", as if that alone was a crime, yet we have the tape of Biden saying you've got 6 hours to fire the prosecutor and I've got a billion dollars leaving with me if you don't.  Biden's quid pro quo is not criminal in their mind because ___.  This quid pro quo, if it existed, is not criminal or even wrong because ... same reason, only true this time.

You can't help but cringe in the transcript when Trump mentions Biden, though he was mostly talking about investigating the 2016 election.  The mention of Biden presents the question, is this targeting?  Yet Trump has been the target since before he entered the Oval Office - to no concern of anyone on the Left.   Obama's IRS targeted and we haven't discovered a soul on the Left who gives a rat's @ss about that Stalin-like tactic, most certainly an impeachable offense if it reached to the top.  Not even an investigation.  When do they lose credibility with their selective outrage?

In the first day of the 'scandal', Trump got it out there that Biden's name was mentioned in the call.  On roughly the second day he put out the transcript.  He received brilliant political advice there.  Ever since we have non-stop inquiries and no further revelation.  They think their false polling justifies what they are doing, but really it is encouraging them to run in the wrong direction.  [Where is their health care legislation?  How about ratifying the Canadian trade agreement?]

This will go on in a partisan way until either House Democrats stop or until Senate Republicans kill it.  Both sides are forgetting the fight is for the middle.  As Crafty pointed out, the point is to damage Trump, but the fight for the House is almost as important, and they are making themselves look bad with their methods and by shirking all other responsibilities.

Is their going to be a rushed impeachment that doesn't mention Russia?  After all we've been through?!  That alone vindicates Trump.  And if it's in there, we get a full trial on it with cross examination and witnesses for the defense.

Democrats have about 8 full days of business left in the government year.  Are they going to skip Thanksgiving and Christmas for this?  How does impeachment get presented, debated, passed, sent to the Senate and have a full trial in that time?  It doesn't, so it just becomes an election year charade helping no one except maybe the President.

You wonder how an incumbent President can run against the deep state establishment as an outsider, an underdog, and then they play right into his hands.
Title: Re: Moyer's: Trumps brainwashed followers of their master
Post by: DougMacG on November 11, 2019, 07:44:05 AM
Condescending the voters you need to win is not the winning strategy. 
Title: Democrat Dershowitz against 'Stalinist' Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 12, 2019, 07:24:29 AM
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/11/dershowitz_house_democrats_acting_like_stalin_on_impeachment_show_me_the_man_and_ill_find_you_the_crime.html
Title: VDH, This Impeachment is IlligitTen Reasons Why Impeachment Is Illegitimate
Post by: DougMacG on November 13, 2019, 06:17:53 AM
Ten Reasons Why Impeachment Is Illegitimate
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-illegitimate-ten-reasons-why/
Title: Judge rules DOJ must give grand jury notes to House inquiry
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2019, 01:29:00 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/house-impeachment-subpoenas.html?fbclid=IwAR2ayK63dUgcXGpGJvTRYXjXLAv6c-7MXvW4OAxMzSvrsSjvW1OVH0Hj248
Title: Beryl A Howell
Post by: ccp on November 13, 2019, 02:16:41 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_A._Howell

appointed by the head of the coup...  one Barack Obama

Anyone have a good book they recommend

I have been reading Arnold Rothstein by David Pietrusza

Heard him in ~ 2104 talking on John Batchelor but never got around to buying or reading the book.

Corruption is more nuanced and perhaps subtle - but the same as then.

Not wasting  my time watching the Schiff show?

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2019, 06:12:16 PM
Nunez gave a fine opening statement for the Reps (a surprise to me I confess), ripping Schiff a number of new anuses.

Jim Jordan did a fine job on cross examination-- an excellent call moving him to the Intel committee.  Mark Levin had high praise.
Title: Posted by Big Dog on my FB page
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2019, 06:24:02 PM


https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/20/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A[%22%5C%22whistleblower%20protection%20act%5C%22%22]%7D&r=34&fbclid=IwAR0W2T1FMomYdhyaCEctQ5eBg1kW2BkAMuTugm9HUN4lD1pRnnVCh1RRLm0

https://employment.findlaw.com/whistleblowers/whistleblower-protection-act-an-overview.html?fbclid=IwAR2vfQRlMgCKGJjMQN4C1FyT98MkqP3r5dt4Y7ZsSjSkP0tZGBf7Z7-hsPo


Interesting history on "high crimes and misdemeanors":
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/?fbclid=IwAR1P4037sMHBOL8luRsS1a1JarkplkHCeLZVDo-XLQudXnQJJDuDvnnXVyc

Title: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment-ORANGE MAN BAD!
Post by: G M on November 13, 2019, 07:29:22 PM
https://www.thediplomad.com/2019/11/impeachment-hearings-new-whine-in-old.html

Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Impeachment Hearings: New Whine in an Old Battle
Despite having just bought a new Sig P226 Legion and a Sig P365 (both excellent), I spent much of the day listening to the so-called impeachment hearings . . . sigh . . . gotta get a life.

I don't know what was more depressing, the hearings themselves or the comments afterwards by the so-called punditry class. These pundits, left and right, were chattering on and on  about "take-aways" from the testimony. Yes, Bill, there was this and there was that, and, of course, that there  . . . PLEASE STOP!

Let me give you the one take-away y'all need, and remember this comes from a former denizen of the Foggy Bottom Swamp, one who used to swim and crawl with all them swamp creatures.

What you saw were a couple of career dips--neither of whom I know personally--whining a familiar whine that one can hear echoing in the halls of Foggy Bottom and just about anywhere else where "PROFESSIONAL" civil servants congregate. What is it? Simple: THEY are not paying attention to us!

You saw Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent all in a knot because the President had an "irregular" channel he used to conduct foreign policy in Ukraine. Wow! I didn't realize that we had elected Taylor and Kent!

Let me put it in nice simple terms so that the Swamp Beings will understand: The President sets and conducts foreign policy, not State, not the NSC, not the DOD, not any other alphabet agency. He does not have to go through State or NSC to conduct said policy; he does not have to consult with Kent or Taylor or anybody else on Ukraine or any other aspect of foreign policy.

All Presidents have used "irregular" channels going back at least to Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House. All have used messengers and negotiators outside the established bureaucracy for different diplomatic missions. There is nothing unusual or illegal or impeachable for doing this. The bureaucracy doesn't like it, so what?

More of this "impeachment" nonsense to come.
Title: Jim Jordan's cross of Ambassador Taylor
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 13, 2019, 09:53:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCSBd580P2A&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1VqeLnZv9lOrfDitDq9VNK718XM0pAkC6PpJEEJinxgPPvVmlJlZYu3-8
Title: Hate to say it but in my opinion
Post by: ccp on November 14, 2019, 02:39:10 PM
Clinton is right :

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/14/bill-clinton-offers-donald-trump-impeachment-advic/

It helped him along with Dick Morris advice , I think on this at that time.

That said, we know that won't happen here.   :roll:
Title: suggestion
Post by: ccp on November 15, 2019, 08:14:32 AM
found this site far more interesting and entertaining than the impeachment circus;

for real excitement google here:

https://www.247solitaire.com/
Title: "Impeachment" Inquiry hearings
Post by: DougMacG on November 15, 2019, 08:41:38 AM
Following most of this, I cannot see where the Democrats are trying to lead, other than to use this season to make Trump look bad coming into reelection year.  Offsetting that, they are making themselves look bad coming into their reelection year.

The message coming out of Wednesday (and today, not over yet) is what?  The grounds for impeachment and removal is what?  The high crimes and misdemeanors were what?  There is no indication in the words spoken by any witness that this is somehow related to impeachment.

This morning:  "The president spoke badly about you.  How did that make you feel?"  "What do mean when you say devastated?"  OMG that's awful.

They call these people who have never met or spoken with the President witnesses.  What did they witness? 

Trump's tweets are of course in-artful but still, how much success have these career diplomats been in Somalia, in Russia, in Ukraine pursuing the status quo over the last 33 years?

She was "relieved of her post" ...  Wasn't she relieved of his post?  Doesn't everyone know the Ambassador represent the President to that country, serves at his or her pleasure, not the other way around where different Presidents take turns communicating to countries through a pre-existing foreign policy apparatus??

Best parts for the Democrats are the long breaks where highly trained media commentators can fill the gaps lacking in real (hearsay) testimony.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on November 15, 2019, 09:06:34 AM
" .Trump's tweets are of course in-artful"

just a thought , maybe not a good one, but

what if the Senate Republicans went to Trump in private and threatened

we will vote to indict if you don't stop the totally childish dumb freakin tweets that are making our ability to defend you more difficult!
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on November 15, 2019, 09:19:10 AM
https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-15-essential-questions-for-marie-yovanovitch-americas-former-ambassador-to-ukraine/ (https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-15-essential-questions-for-marie-yovanovitch-americas-former-ambassador-to-ukraine/)

https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-real-ukraine-controversy-an-activist-u-s-embassy-and-its-adherence-to-the-geneva-convention/ (https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-real-ukraine-controversy-an-activist-u-s-embassy-and-its-adherence-to-the-geneva-convention/)

The links to primary sources in these two articles are important.  It isn't just Solomon stating his opinion.
Title: Impeachment score
Post by: DougMacG on November 15, 2019, 05:45:58 PM
The Republicans have landed many punches on Dems and their star witnesses and Democrats have landed none on Trump.

Like nuclear missile defense, the game is a little unfair.  They only have to land one punch to win the game, evidence of one impeachable act.  Doesn't seem like the would have started this way if they had one.

They thought the dripping news of the call would be the punch but Trump took all the wind from the sails when he released the transcript with no crime or mis-deed.

So they indecisively decided to proceed anyway ...

Impeach the Democratic House.
Title: Re: Impeachment score
Post by: G M on November 15, 2019, 10:35:13 PM
The Republicans have landed many punches on Dems and their star witnesses and Democrats have landed none on Trump.

Like nuclear missile defense, the game is a little unfair.  They only have to land one punch to win the game, evidence of one impeachable act.  Doesn't seem like the would have started this way if they had one.

They thought the dripping news of the call would be the punch but Trump took all the wind from the sails when he released the transcript with no crime or mis-deed.

So they indecisively decided to proceed anyway ...

Impeach the Democratic House.

He will be impeached on grounds of ORANGE MAN BAD. He will not be removed.
Title: Yovanonitch admits Giuliani meeting w Uke officials not unusual
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2019, 11:23:49 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/15/rep-turner-gets-yovanovitch-to-admit-giuliani-meeting-with-u-s-ukrainian-officials-isnt-unusual/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=best_of_the_week&utm_campaign=20191116
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment discussed by former CIA Station Chief and SEAL
Post by: G M on November 16, 2019, 08:04:41 PM
https://www.americanpartisan.org/2019/11/matt-bracken-and-retired-cia-chief-of-station-brad-johnson-discuss-impeachment-and-the-deep-state-coup/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2019, 10:31:25 PM
Would someone paste this article please?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/how-a-cia-analyst-alarmed-by-trumps-shadow-foreign-policy-triggered-an-impeachment-inquiry/2019/11/15/042684a8-03c3-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html
Title: The Maidan Analogy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2019, 03:46:09 PM
https://kaus.substack.com/p/the-maidans-tale?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyOTIzODI2LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxNzE1MjYsIl8iOiJjMXNldSIsImlhdCI6MTU3Mzg3MTQ4MCwiZXhwIjoxNTczODc1MDgwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMTA5NDIiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.bPoZNTcqWtErW1H-M8grc8Zjd-3zqbqoC5WQJMhRtOA
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment Wash Post
Post by: DougMacG on November 19, 2019, 07:16:35 AM
Would someone paste this article please?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/how-a-cia-analyst-alarmed-by-trumps-shadow-foreign-policy-triggered-an-impeachment-inquiry/2019/11/15/042684a8-03c3-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

[Tip: I was blocked also blocked by my browser (Brave), then opened it with a different browser less often used, Explorer in this case.  They must store the cookies separately]

How a CIA analyst, alarmed by Trump’s shadow foreign policy, triggered an impeachment inquiry

President Trump walks toward Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House on Oct. 23. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
By Greg Miller,Greg Jaffe and Paul Sonne
November 16, 2019

The lights are often on late into the evening at CIA headquarters, where a team of elite analysts works on classified reports that influence how the country responds to global crises.
In early August, one of those analysts was staying after hours on a project with even higher stakes. For two weeks, he pored over notes of alarming conversations with White House officials, reviewed details from interagency memos on the U.S. relationship with Ukraine and scanned public statements by President Trump.

He wove this material into a nine-page memo outlining evidence that Trump had abused the powers of his office to try to coerce Ukraine into helping him get reelected. Then, on Aug. 12, the analyst hit “send.”

His decision to report what he had learned to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general has transformed the political landscape of the United States, triggering a rapidly moving impeachment inquiry that now imperils Trump’s presidency.

Over the past three months, the allegations made in that document have been overwhelmingly substantiated — by the sworn testimony of administration officials, the inadvertent admissions of Trump’s acting chief of staff and, most important, the president’s own words, as captured on a record of his July 25 call with the leader of Ukraine.

As the impeachment inquiry entered a new phase of public hearings on Wednesday, the outlines of the case have been thoroughly established: the president, his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and two diplomats are alleged to have collaborated to pressure Ukraine to pursue investigations to bolster Trump’s conspiracy theories about the 2016 election and damage the prospects of a potential opponent in next year’s election, former vice president Joe Biden.

Trump cites corruption in Kyiv and European stinginess to justify actions on Ukraine. Neither rationale withstands close scrutiny.
To advance this hidden agenda, Trump and his allies orchestrated the ouster of a U.S. ambassador, the withholding of an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine’s new president and the suspension of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid.

But beyond that familiar fact pattern, the revelations reflect a country in political crisis.
The United States has embarked on an impeachment proceeding against a president for only the fourth time in its history. The voluminous testimony so far has revealed a government at war with itself over how to respond to Trump’s frequent conflation of the country’s interests with his own. After casting itself as a force against corruption, condemning politically driven prosecutions in other countries, the United States now appears to have sought to coerce such actions from a partner nation.

It is not clear whether any of this would have come to light were it not for the actions of a relatively junior CIA employee, who is now the target of almost daily attacks by Trump and right-wing efforts to make his identity widely public.

Dozens of senior officials — including the national security adviser, the secretary of state and the acting White House chief of staff — were either aware of or involved in the Ukraine scheme and failed to expose or stop it. More than a half-dozen lower-ranking officials made futile attempts to intervene.

Impeachment this week: The hearings go public

In the first week of open impeachment hearings, three career diplomats gave dramatic testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. (The Washington Post)
Ultimately, it came down to a lone analyst, in a cubicle miles from the White House, drafting an unprecedented document in the detached manner he had learned in his CIA training.

“In the course of my official duties,” he wrote, “I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”

This article is based on interviews with dozens of U.S. and Ukrainian officials, the whistleblower report, the White House call record and thousands of pages of impeachment hearing transcripts. Many officials and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue and fear of retaliation.

The CIA declined to comment on all matters related to the whistleblower, including whether he is employed at the agency. The whistleblower’s lawyers also declined to comment.

Attempts to discredit the whistleblower have depicted him as driven by ideology or political grievance, secretly determined to unseat the president. The inspector general did note “an arguable political bias” on the part of the whistleblower but found his complaint “credible.”
Current and former officials familiar with the analyst’s actions said that he was daunted by the implications of his decision, both for the country and his career, and that he never contemplated becoming a whistleblower until learning about the nature of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The rough transcript of that call, which was released by the White House after the analyst’s concerns became public, shows Trump opening with congratulations on Ukraine’s recent parliamentary elections and then transitioning swiftly into applying pressure.

“I would like you to do us a favor though,” Trump says, urging Zelensky to order investigations into a baseless claim that Kyiv is hiding computer equipment that would supposedly prove it was Ukraine, and not Russia, that hacked the Democratic National Committee’s network in 2016; and into a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, that had employed Biden’s son Hunter to serve on its board of directors for up to $100,000 a month.

Inside Joe Biden’s brawling efforts to reform Ukraine — which won him successes and enemies
In their 30-minute conversation, there was no mention of the two nations’ shared goals of repelling Russian aggression, no expression of broader concern about corruption, no reference to Ukraine’s desire for a closer relationship with the West.

The call is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives, rising above all other allegations or evidence in significance, according to senior officials involved in the probe.
“The call itself shows what we believe to be a misuse of power of the office of the presidency for personal gain,” said a senior Democratic official. “It quickly became the center of our investigation.”
Still, the official said, “We wanted to expand outward before and after the call. What was the impetus? Why was Trump asking about these investigations? Who was involved and who knew about it?”

The timing of Trump’s attempt to pressure Zelensky made it all the more extraordinary. One day earlier, former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III had, in halting testimony before Congress, essentially ended any prospect that Trump would face impeachment for his campaign’s ties to Russia in 2016 or alleged efforts to obstruct the investigation into election interference that followed.

The Russia “cloud” that Trump has so frequently railed against had finally been lifted. And yet, within hours, he was exposing himself to new allegations of collusion, this time not with Russia, but with neighboring Ukraine.

On the call, however, Trump makes clear that he sees the two threats to his presidency as inextricably linked, and his attempt to pressure Ukraine appears driven by his refusal to accept the reality of Moscow’s interference and the stain he believes that left on his surprising win.
Midway through the call, Trump appears to gloat about the collapse of the Russia investigation. “That whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance,” Trump said. “But they say a lot of it started with Ukraine.”

Several witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have said that Trump bears significant hostility toward Ukraine, stemming in part from the country’s role in exposing the financial corruption of his 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.

Trump began airing conspiratorial claims about Ukraine as early as April 2017. That month, he made a baseless allegation he has since repeated frequently: that Democratic Party officials had refused to let computers hacked by Russia be examined by the FBI and instead “brought in another company that I hear is Ukraine-based.”

The president, who derided Russia allegations against him as a “hoax,” was advancing one of his own.

The “blame Ukraine” idea gained additional traction after Trump hired Giuliani as his lawyer. The former New York mayor began scavenging the factionalized and often conspiratorial world of Kyiv politics for material that might be used to construct an alternate scenario of what happened in 2016 and help blunt the Mueller probe.

Early this year, as the Russia investigation neared its conclusion, Giuliani began meeting with Ukrainian officials, including the country’s top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, who were eager to gain an ally in the White House.

In the ensuing months, Giuliani appears to have functioned as a conduit for specious claims that made their way to Trump and right-wing media outlets. Among them were allegations that the U.S. ambassador in Kyiv was actively undermining Trump’s agenda and that Biden had used his power as vice president to derail a Ukraine corruption investigation into the company that had hired his son.
The allegations had important qualities in common: They were distortions, if not outright fabrications, and they were easier to spread than to disprove.

Kurt Volker, right, the special envoy to Ukraine, and Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, meet with members of Ukraine’s parliament on Jan. 25, 2018. (U.S. Embassy in Ukraine)
Giuliani’s activities became a source of concern to wary officials at the White House and the State Department in the early months of 2019, worries that intensified in May when U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was forced out of her position in Kyiv over baseless allegations against her and Giuliani seized on her ouster to declare that he would be pushing a new agenda in the U.S. relationship with Ukraine.

In a May interview with the New York Times, Giuliani declared that he would be traveling to Ukraine for meetings aimed at advancing investigations that “will be very, very helpful to my client.” He added: “We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation.” Giuliani later scrapped the trip, telling Fox News that he wasn’t going because Zelensky was surrounded by enemies of the U.S. president — a statement that unnerved Zelensky’s team in Kyiv and sent them scrambling for advice about what to do.

Giuliani’s brazenness also caused confusion and alarm in the White House. Fiona Hill, who until July served as Trump’s top adviser on Russia and Ukraine, found herself tuning in to television coverage in a search for answers about Giuliani’s activities that she couldn’t get at work.
“I would have to go home in the evening and try to look on the news to see what Giuliani was doing,” Hill testified, “because people were constantly saying to me: ‘My God, have you seen what Giuliani is saying now?’ ”

National security adviser John Bolton also took to turning up the volume on the television set in his office whenever Giuliani appeared on-screen, an effort to get a sense of what the president’s personal lawyer was planting in Trump’s ear in their off-the-books conversations on Trump’s personal cellphone.

The ouster of Yovanovitch and the private calls between Trump and Giuliani marked the activation of a rogue front in the relationship with Ukraine that was at odds with established policy.
By month’s end, the division would crack open further as Giuliani acquired reinforcements.
In May, Trump blocked a plan to send Vice President Pence to Zelensky’s inauguration and instead dispatched a delegation that included Energy Secretary Rick Perry, U.S. special envoy Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland, a Trump megadonor with no diplomatic experience who had been named ambassador to the European Union.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks with Gordon Sondland, right, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, on his inauguration day on May 20. (U.S. Embassy in Ukraine)

On May 23, the trio, who dubbed themselves “the three amigos,” met with Trump in the Oval Office, eager to share their favorable impression of Zelensky as an anti-corruption reformer. “He didn’t want to hear about it,” Sondland said of Trump.

Instead, Trump railed that the Ukrainians were “horrible, corrupt people” and ordered the three men to “talk to Rudy.”

Trump’s grievances were so ingrained and irrational that the three officials decided, according to the testimony of Sondland and Volker, that they had no choice but to do as the president directed and hope that Giuliani could help them broker a meeting between Trump and Zelensky that might reset the American president’s views.

The three convinced themselves that they were serving the interests of Ukraine and the United States, even as they were drawn into a furtive scheme that Democrats say appeared to have elements of bribery: There would be no Oval Office meeting for Zelensky until he committed to Trump-specified, politically motivated investigations.

With a White House visit a distant goal, Sondland and Volker set their sights on an intermediate objective — a Trump-Zelensky phone call. As they pursued that, Hill and others at the White House chafed at the emergence of a new, seemingly unauthorized diplomatic channel.
On June 18, Hill had what she described as a “blow up” with Sondland after she challenged him to explain why the E.U. ambassador was meddling in the affairs of a country that is not part of his portfolio.

“Who has put you in charge of it?” Hill asked, according to her testimony. Sondland shot back: “The president.”

At the same time, a new obstacle for the three amigos emerged in Kyiv: William B. Taylor Jr., a veteran diplomat, had arrived as acting ambassador, armed with what he thought were rock-solid assurances that there would be no diminution in U.S. support for Ukraine.

Fiona Hill, a former top Russia adviser on the National Security Council, leaves the Capitol following closed-door testimony on Nov. 2. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post)


But within weeks of his arrival, Taylor also began to sense the presence of what he would later call an “irregular” U.S.-Ukraine channel. On June 27, Sondland told Taylor by phone that hopes for a Trump-Zelensky meeting hinged on the Ukrainian leader making it clear that he did not stand in the way of “investigations.”

A day later, as Taylor, Sondland, Volker and Perry spoke by phone to prepare for a conference call with Zelensky, Sondland ordered State Department support staff off the line, saying he “wanted to make sure no one was transcribing” what they were about to say.

Volker then said he planned to meet with Zelensky in Toronto on July 2 to secure his commitment to “get to the bottom of things,” a cryptic reference that Taylor sensed was tied to the hidden agendas of Giuliani and Trump. Sondland told Volker to ask that Zelensky use the words “no stone unturned.”
Two weeks later, the irregular and regular channels collided in spectacular fashion in the White House. On July 10, two of Zelensky’s top advisers, Oleksandr Danylyuk and Andriy Yermak, were escorted into the West Wing for a meeting with Bolton.

Danylyuk, Ukraine’s national security adviser, had been coached by Sondland to press Bolton for a date for Zelensky and Trump to meet. But that advice proved misguided. Bolton was at that point against a meeting, in part because of concerns about Giuliani’s influence and Trump’s motives.
As Bolton resisted being pinned down, Sondland tried to intercede, telling the Ukrainians that an agreement was already in place and that Ukraine needed to commit to unspecified “investigations,” according to Hill, who witnessed the event.

Former national security adviser John Bolton. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Bolton, who had previously told subordinates that he worried Giuliani was a “hand grenade,” suddenly “stiffened and ended the meeting,” Hill testified.
Sondland, seemingly unperturbed, instructed the Ukrainians to follow him into a meeting room in the West Wing basement.

Bolton dispatched Hill to follow the group. When she reported back that Sondland had gone even further in the follow-up session by specifically mentioning Burisma, Bolton ordered her to report what she had heard to John Eisenberg, the National Security Council’s senior lawyer.
“Tell Eisenberg that I am not part of this drug deal that Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” he told her, referring to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, whom Sondland had depicted as an ally of his efforts on Ukraine.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a senior Ukraine specialist on Bolton’s staff, witnessed both meetings and also sought out Eisenberg. Vindman testified that it was in those sessions that he realized that Trump was using a White House meeting as leverage on investigations with Zelensky.
Alexander Vindman: Soviet emigre and decorated U.S. Army officer wanted to be as American as can be. Now the president questions his motives.

If Zelensky were to do as Trump asked and launch such probes, Vindman testified, it would damage Ukraine’s standing, weaken its ability to fight off Russian aggression and “this would all undermine U.S. national security.”

At the same time as the volatile meetings in the West Wing, Zelensky’s team was learning that even a phone call with Trump might have a price. Zelensky’s chief of staff was warned through backchannel communications that Giuliani, who was growing frustrated with a perceived lack of access and cooperation from Kyiv, would oppose even a call with Trump, according to Taylor and a person familiar with the message.

Eight days after the White House meeting, Taylor learned about a troubling new aspect of the effort to pressure Ukraine. In a July 18 video conference call with National Security Council officials, the acting ambassador “sat in astonishment” as an aide representing the Office of Management and Budget informed the others that $391 million in security aid to Ukraine was being put on hold. She offered no explanation, except to say that the order had “come from the president.”
“In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened,” Taylor testified. “The irregular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of long-standing U.S. policy.”
It was seven days before the Trump-Zelensky call.

When Trump was elected, there was wishful thinking in Washington that his unconventional behavior as a candidate would be curbed by the responsibilities of the office — that he would gradually absorb the wisdom of foreign policy experts and welcome the advice of Cabinet officials.

The Ukraine story shows the extent to which the opposite has happened: Trump has outlasted virtually all of those who fought to check his impulses, including former defense secretary Jim Mattis and former chief of staff John F. Kelly. Their absence has bolstered his ability to bend institutions to his will.

When the White House operator patched Trump through to Zelensky on the morning of July 25, it was despite attempts by Bolton to head off a call he worried would be a “disaster.” Bolton had sought to coach Trump earlier that morning, only to learn later that Sondland had secretly arranged a follow-up conversation and gotten the final word.

The amigos had also coached Zelensky before the conversation, with Volker telling a top adviser to the Ukrainian president hours earlier that Zelensky should specifically pledge that he will “get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016.

Trump, who rarely arrives at his office before 11 a.m., was still in the residence when he got on the line. Several floors below, a handful of national security officials were following protocol and monitoring the conversation from the Situation Room.

The key impeachment question: What did Trump want from Ukraine — and what exactly did he do?
Notably missing were Bolton, Pence and Hill, who had left her White House job days earlier. The only high-ranking official on the line was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — a fact he concealed for a week after the record of the call was disclosed.

Almost immediately, Vindman noticed an edge in the president’s voice, his misplaced grievances about Ukraine coming through. He brought up U.S. aid and said the country’s generosity was not reciprocated. He disparaged Yovanovitch, saying: “She’s going to go through some things.”
He leaned on Zelensky to hunt for the supposedly missing Democratic computer equipment, even though his top advisers had been warning him for years that the claim was baseless. Trump zeroed in on the former vice president and urged Zelensky to coordinate with Giuliani and U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr.

“Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution,” Trump said, mischaracterizing Biden’s statements and intentions. “So if you can look into it. . . . It sounds horrible to me.”
The call ended at 9:33 a.m. Over the next 24 hours, a climate of fear and suspicion descended on the White House, as Vindman and others who had either listened to the call or learned about it indirectly raised alarms with lawyers and senior officials, including Bolton, as well as with peers from the State Department and the CIA.

Though neither side grasped it at the time, the regular and irregular channels were now on a collision course — each taking steps that ensured the inevitability of an impeachment inquiry. Neither side appears to have had any clue that the trigger would be a CIA analyst, who kept his plans secret to all but a trusted few.

The warnings from Vindman and others failed to prompt any kind of mobilization in the senior ranks of the White House, such as an emergency meeting of National Security Council officials or a direct intervention with the president. Instead, officials sought to contain the fallout from the call, even as Trump’s allies escalated their pressure campaign in Ukraine.

Eisenberg, the top National Security Council lawyer, responded by moving to restrict access to the transcript of the call, which was placed on a computer system normally reserved for highly classified intelligence programs. It took weeks for the administration to enlist Justice Department officials to review the call record, an exercise that narrowly concluded that there were no campaign finance crimes in a call that included references to Barr.

In Kyiv, the reaction to the call was mixed. Zelensky seemed pleased that the conversation had occurred as scheduled and that his relationship with Trump might finally move forward, according to an official in the room with Ukraine’s leader. But others were either confused or concerned about the content and the failure to agree upon a date for a face-to-face meeting.

Some on Zelensky’s team worried that Trump would send a tweet claiming a commitment from Ukraine to investigate Biden and the 2016 election, dragging the country into American politics.
AUGUST 2019
A nightmare scenario

Zelensky and Vice President Pence, right, attend a World War II commemoration in Warsaw on Sept. 1. (Alexey Vitvitsky/Sputnik/AP)
In the ensuing days, the pressure campaign only intensified.
On July 26, Trump spoke by phone with Sondland, who was in Kyiv, and asked whether Zelensky would “do the investigation” he had raised in their conversation the previous day, according to the testimony of a U.S. Embassy staffer in Kyiv, David Holmes, who witnessed the Trump-Sondland call.
Sondland had met with Zelensky earlier in the day and had called Trump to provide an update.
Sondland replied: “He’s gonna do it,” adding that Zelensky will “do anything you ask him to,” Holmes testified. Holmes said that he asked Sondland about Trump’s views toward Ukraine and that the ambassador told him that Trump did not “give a s--- about Ukraine.”

The disclosure provides new evidence of Trump’s direct hand in the Ukraine matter. The conversation was overheard by U.S. Embassy officials accompanying Sondland. It may also have been monitored by Russian intelligence. Sondland had called Trump by cellphone from a restaurant. Russian spy services have substantial surveillance capabilities in Kyiv.

On Aug. 2, Giuliani traveled to Madrid to meet with Yermak. Giuliani wanted Zelensky to issue a public statement confirming that the Ukrainian government would undertake the investigations. Sondland and Volker spent much of that month trading text messages with Yermak over the preferred language, making it clear that the statement was now a prerequisite to an Oval Office meeting.

The gesture had outsize importance to Zelensky, who regarded a White House meeting as the clearest way to send a signal of U.S.-Ukraine solidarity to Moscow, which is still waging a proxy war in Ukraine’s eastern territory that has claimed 13,000 lives.
Members of Zelensky’s inner circle say they didn’t learn until the end of August about the suspension of U.S. aid meant to help Ukrainian ­forces, when it was revealed in a Politico story. One Ukrainian official said it appeared earlier in internal Ukrainian government reports that may not have reached Zelensky.

The disclosure created a new rupture in the relationship on the eve of what was supposed to be the first encounter between Trump and Zelensky at a gathering of world leaders on Sept. 1 in Warsaw. The prospect of that meeting evaporated when a hurricane bearing down on Florida prompted Trump to send Pence to the event, a World War II commemoration, in his stead.

Pence was either woefully unprepared or unwilling to provide straight answers to anxious Ukrainian officials. At a large, formal meeting, Zelensky immediately pressed the vice president about the frozen aid. Pence professed not to know the cause of the holdup, speaking vaguely about corruption concerns and promising to raise the issue with Trump.

The Ukrainians were flummoxed by Pence’s evasion. “You’re the only country providing us military assistance,” one of Zelensky’s aides told him. “You’re punishing us.”

Sondland arrives on Capitol Hill for his deposition on Oct. 17. (Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images)
Sondland, who had also traveled to Poland, used a side conversation in a hotel with one of Zelensky’s advisers to fill in the blanks. He laid out the transaction in the starkest terms to date: To get the funding and a White House meeting, Zelensky had to commit publicly to investigating Burisma in an interview with CNN that would be seen in the United States.

When word of this encounter made its way back to Taylor, the acting ambassador was outraged. That same day, Sept. 1, Taylor confronted Sondland via text: “Are we now saying that security assistance and Wh meeting are conditioned on investigations?”

Sondland refused to answer in writing, saying: “Call me.”

The development led to skirmishes between Taylor and Sondland. A week later, Taylor threatened to resign over what he warned would be a “nightmare” scenario. “The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the assistance,” Taylor said by text, voicing concern that Trump would betray Zelensky even if he announced Burisma investigations. “The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”
The next day, Sept. 9, Taylor texted Sondland after another tense call. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Sondland didn’t reply until the following day. That evening, he called the White House and was patched through to Trump. The next morning, he delivered a scripted reply to the wary ambassador.
“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” Sondland wrote. “The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”
BLOWING THE WHISTLE
Crazy and frightening

The news media prepares to interview House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) in September. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Two days later, on Sept. 11, the White House removed the ban on aid to Ukraine, capitulating to rising pressure from Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department after the existence of the whistleblower report was known. The restoration of the flow of money was seen by Sondland, Taylor and others as a sign that the crisis had abated.

They were oblivious to events unfolding in Washington that would expose the Ukraine scheme. The “regular” channel, as Taylor called it, was about to reassert itself.
The day after Trump’s conversation with Zelensky, the CIA analyst spoke by phone with a highly agitated official at the White House. The official was “shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague,” the analyst noted in a memo he wrote to record the conversation.

The White House official described the Trump call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.” The official said he had already raised the matter with White House lawyers, convinced that Trump had “clearly committed a criminal act.”
The analyst does not identify the official in his July 26 memo, which was obtained by congressional investigators in the impeachment inquiry. But Vindman, in his testimony, disclosed that he had spoken to officials outside the White House within days of the Trump-Zelensky call.
Graphic: Who’s involved in the Trump impeachment inquiry
The analyst appears to have concluded almost immediately that he was obligated to act but seemed unsure about how.

His first step was to approach an official in the office of the CIA general counsel to raise concerns about the Trump call, according to people familiar with the whistleblower’s actions.
Days later, the analyst learned that the CIA’s top lawyer, Courtney Simmons Elwood, had notified the White House and became concerned that the matter would be stifled. He then sought out an official on the House Intelligence Committee, conveying his concern only in the broadest terms before the official urged him to say no more and consult a lawyer.

The analyst next turned to a friend who is an attorney and an expert on national security law. The two chatted briefly at a coffee shop before the lawyer, recognizing the magnitude of the matter, also stopped the analyst before any details were broached.

The friend referred the analyst to another attorney, Andrew Bakaj, who had more expertise on whistleblower procedure and law. After parting ways, the friend pulled out his iPhone and deleted a calendar item he had created for their meeting that included the whistleblower’s name.
The analyst had served on the National Security Council during the Trump administration and had been in the presence of the president. After returning to the CIA, his job required him to continue to participate in National Security Council meetings.

His White House contacts became conduits of concern about Trump’s behavior toward Ukraine, though the analyst appears not to have told any of those officials — on the advice of Bakaj — about his plan to submit an official whistleblower complaint to the U.S. intelligence community inspector general.

The report he submitted reveals aspects of how he went about assembling this file. Though triggered by the July 25 call, he made clear that it drew on information that had been shared with him “over the past four months” from “more than half a dozen U.S. officials.”

The file was heavily focused on what Trump had said to Zelensky in their half-hour conversation, but it also contained details about what had happened in the aftermath, including the move to “lock down” the call record and follow-up efforts by Sondland and Volker to help Zelensky “navigate” Trump’s demands.

It described Giuliani’s meetings with Ukrainian prosecutors seen by the U.S. government as corrupt and seeking to settle scores with their perceived adversaries. It outlined the smear campaign to oust Yovanovitch and his own discovery in mid-July — long before officials in Kyiv knew — that U.S. aid to Ukraine had been suspended.

When the report was submitted on Aug. 12, it triggered a constitutional clash. White House officials fought for weeks to block the acting director of national intelligence from turning the complaint over to relevant committees in Congress, as required by law.

But the administration relented under mounting pressure, including demands by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and press reports including a Sept. 18 story in The Washington Post revealing that the focus of the complaint was a call that Trump had with a foreign leader.

On Sept. 25, the administration released the rough transcript of the call in a futile attempt to head off the formation of a House impeachment inquiry. Then, on Sept. 26, the administration declassified the whistleblower complaint itself.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Schiff hold a news conference on Capitol Hill on Oct. 2. (Sarah Silbiger/For The Washington Post)
None of its core contentions has been substantially discredited in the seven weeks since, though Trump has continued to insist that his conversation with Zelensky was “perfect” and that the public should “read the transcript.”

His former advisers have characterized the call more harshly and voiced concern that Trump’s political machinations represent an assault on American values that has eroded the country’s standing and played into Russia’s hands. In her testimony last month, Hill delivered an impassioned warning that the United States’ faltering resistance to conspiracy theories and corruption represents a self-inflicted crisis and renders the country vulnerable to its enemies.
“The Russians, you know, can’t basically exploit cleavages if there are not cleavages,” she said. “The Russians can’t exploit corruption if there’s not corruption. They can’t exploit alternative narratives if those alternative narratives are not out there and getting credence. What the Russians do is they exploit things that already exist.”

Trump has waged a campaign to impugn the motives of the whistleblower, attacking him more than 50 times on Twitter and demanding that his identity be exposed.

Congressional allies and right-wing media sites have attempted to follow suit. Only minutes after the first public impeachment hearing got underway Wednesday — with Taylor and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department overseeing European and Eurasian affairs, as witnesses — Republican lawmakers sought to halt the proceedings and force the whistleblower to appear.
But the events he set in motion, and the evidence now driving them, have moved beyond the complaint he submitted three months ago. The CIA has taken security measures to protect the analyst, who has continued to work at agency headquarters on Russia and Ukraine issues.
Title: Vindman blew his own bombshell, "request" not "demand", Ukrainian quid pro quo
Post by: DougMacG on November 19, 2019, 07:38:12 AM
BIG slip up early in the testimony, Vindman referred to Pres Trump's "request" of the Ukainians and immediately corrected himself to call the "request" a "demand".  That seemed odd until the next question came from Chair Adam Schiff who followed up on his notes for questioning by saying, 'I noticed you used the term demand" to describe what Pres trump wanted'.

It couldn't have looked more rehearsed and scripted. 

Everyone who has read the transcript knew it was a request, not a demand.  He said, "I want to ask you a favor..."

Anything other than that is someone else's interpretation, not factual testimony.

I hate to say it but Vindman is a phony, a plant, a co-conspirator of  the coup.  This was supposed to be his bombshell and he blew it:
https://hillreporter.com/vindman-testimony-bombshell-it-was-a-demand-from-trump-for-zelensky-to-investigate-biden-50617

The "request for a favor' from the President of the United States carries a heavy weight, like a demand only because of the Ukrainian quid pro quo; they want something of very large value from the United States in exchange for their cooperation.
-------------------
I couldn't tell for certain, but 'witness' Williams seemed to be there to implicate Pence.  If so, then the whole impeachment coup idea makes much more sense.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2019, 06:27:50 PM
OMG!!! Vindman admits to being offered Ukraine's Minister of Defense post three times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Jim Jordan on a rampage!
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2019, 10:02:13 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amu2fwt0mwg
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on November 20, 2019, 12:47:41 PM
Interesting column on American Thinker claiming that none of the military assistance funds were being blocked by Trump, but the second tranche was under a prolonged review for apportionment of the funds from the US to Ukraine.  This review is required 4 times per year by the statute that Congress had been enacted into law.  Complete with links to original source material.  The column contends that the first tranche of $125 million of military aid had been sent to Ukraine before Zelensky had been elected.  There is also another $141.5 million of non-military assistance through the State Department that was under a similar review.  But that Trump had not blocked the aid; the aid was under a statutorily mandated review.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/president_trump_never_impounded_even_one_dollar_from_ukraine_aid.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/president_trump_never_impounded_even_one_dollar_from_ukraine_aid.html)
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2019, 12:51:42 PM
VERY interesting-- but how does it play in light of Sondman's testimony today?  Why hasn't this point been made before?

Title: What if Trump was right about Ukraine?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2019, 01:43:06 PM
Second post

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-what-if-trump-was-right-about-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3YnBe5nZuxMH-VvlQ0FV8PqkhnS0Y-eHrYTlQSZG-6j0XiTvvHp41HPYc
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on November 20, 2019, 01:45:58 PM
craftydog - all I note is that the media keeps reporting that the funding had been placed under review.  They don't go into detail.  It does not fit Schiff's narrative to bring out this information.  If this is accurate, it could be brought forward by the Republicans if they are permitted to call witnesses.  The point here is that the law itself requires these reviews during each fiscal year.  And Sondman asserted today that the quid pro quo was the meeting - not the aid under review. 

Sondman's testimony then doesn't make sense if you compare it to the memo of the July 25th phone call.

In the phone call, Trump agreed to a face-to-face meeting with Zelensky after hearing Zelensky's statements about conducting full and fair investigations with his people.  The only issue was a scheduling one concerning whether they would meet in early September at Warsaw or on some other date at the White House. 

Trump stayed in the US when Hurricane Dorian was threatening to hit the east coast and VP Pence went to Warsaw in hiss place.  VP Pence's Chief of Staff today issued a written statement denying Sondman's claim that Sondman and Pence met in person and alone with Zelensky at Warsaw. 

The review of the military aid tranche was completed and the funds were released on Sept 11, 2019.  I wonder if it is mere coincidence that this release date occurred one day after Bolton's resignation. 

Trump met Zelensky in New York in late September. 

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on November 20, 2019, 01:48:16 PM
Here's a timeline of events going back to 2014 put together by John Solomon.  You will see that he has sourced everything with a link to supporting material.  It should help place things in a more proper perspective.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-ukraine-scandal-timeline-democrats-and-their-media-allies-dont-want-america-to-see/ (https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-ukraine-scandal-timeline-democrats-and-their-media-allies-dont-want-america-to-see/)
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 20, 2019, 03:04:58 PM
Crafty:
VERY interesting-- but how does it play in light of Sondland's testimony today?  Why hasn't this point been made before?
----------

[as Rick said] Sondland put all his emphasis on 'the meeting', seemed to know nothing about the aid. 

Interesting point Rick about the timeline.  Note that Democrats are NOT using a timeline.

We don't know what coordination the House Republican counsel has, if any, with the White House.  Maybe the WH holds back a few cards to let their opponents go out on a limb they can cut off.  I like that the Republican counsel insists on the word "pause" with the aid; won't allow the word delay.  I would imagine large checks of that sort require a lot of sign-offs.

Strange day of testimony (so far?).  Both sides got what they wanted - partly - and were frustrated by Sondland at times.  Not one mind was changed either way.

Most of the time I can't tell what the 'prosecution' is trying to get at. Today they were badgering their own star witness.   Schiff keeps mixing 2016 investigation with Barisma (sp) with Bidens but the first two are of legitimate interest [and so is the third].

Not one mind has changed either way through the whole process.  Democrats in the swing districts will follow either the polls or their leaders and Republicans will mostly do whatever is the right thing as they see it.  So far no impeachable act I can see, just the presumption by opponents that Trump only cares Ukraine because of potential dirt on the Bidens. [Oops, he also cared about holding up aid to get allies to pay more first.]  Republicans have really made the point well that looking into corruption in Ukraine is a very legitimate act, no matter who it involves.

Pretty obvious projection on the part of Dems because Obama, Hillary, Kerry really did use Ukraine for political purposes and left them out in the cold in terms of needed military assistance.
Title: Uke govt goes after Burisma
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 20, 2019, 05:17:11 PM
Just starting to catch up on today's testimony.

Jordon and Ratliffe seemed to do really well.

Wonder where Hunter, hired for transparency and corporate governance, fits in with all of this.  Was it his responsibility to spot this?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma-idUSKBN1XU2N7?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR34dDQjUSg0s948tFyaMTwocHEmiUDzQV3An61gmGsJtI6xFKmZ62hFnyU
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on November 21, 2019, 03:41:30 AM
I did some more digging into the American Thinker column I posted above.  I'm not sure the author is accurate as to every claim; but I am certain about several things.  I suggest reading the following article.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/how-the-omb-used-its-powers-to-delay-ukraine-aid (https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/how-the-omb-used-its-powers-to-delay-ukraine-aid)

1.  We are talking about the process called "obligating the funds."  This means that the contracts necessary to spend the funds are signed and approved before the money is spent.  This is not a case where the appropriated funds are wire transferred in bulk to Ukraine.  The actual spending of the funds might not occur until next year, but those dollars would come from the federal government's fiscal year 2019 budget - not the current FY 2020 budget. 

2.  The OMB order was an apportionment order that was issued on the same day as the phone call, July 25th.  An apportionment order is issued to review whether the appropriated funds should be spent exactly as proposed or whether the funds should be spent in different amounts on different things.  The Ukraine law mandates 4 reviews per year on apportionment of appropriated funds.  An apportionment review cannot block the spending of the appropriated funds.

3.  If the President wants to block the spending of the money, he must seek a rescission of the appropriation from Congress.  And Congress must approve such a rescission.  While some people claim that rescission was discussed as to Ukraine, it was never requested.

4.  On September 11th, the State Department certified to OMB that its portion, $141.5 million, of the Ukraine funds under apportionment review, were ready for obligation.

5.  On September 12th, OMB released its verbal hold on the $250 million of security assistance and the $141.5 million of aid through the State Department.

6.  By September 30, 2019, most all of these appropriations were obligated.

7.  Trump requested another $250 million of security assistance for Ukraine in his FY 2020 budget request.

Thus, what we are talking about is an OMB freeze on releasing funds for obligation; but, at the same time, OMB was telling the DoD and State Department to continue preparing for obligating these funds before the end of the fiscal year.  And, we are talking about a situation in which these funds most likely would not have been obligated for spending until near the end of the prior fiscal year anyway. 

A number of Congressmen of both parties didn't like the slowness of the apportionment process and started complaining to OMB and to the media. 

Senator Ron Johnson's letter to HPSCI states clearly that by late August, the Trump administration had decided to release the Ukraine funds for obligation.  When Johnson asked Trump about it, Trump said that we were close to a decision and that he (Johnson) would like the result. 

Thus, it appears that we are talking about an authorized and legal apportionment process for the aid that took longer than some wanted it to take.  And that sparked a mini political spat.  However, even if the funds had been released from the OMB hold for apportionment review in mid-August, they most likely would not have been obligated for spending until mid to late September anyway.  Finally, obligation of the funds did not mean that the funds were actually sent to Ukraine.  It just meant that these funds were allocated for use in various spending tranches for specific things and for disbursement at some later time.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 21, 2019, 08:08:53 AM
This is outstanding work you are doing here Rick!
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, end game
Post by: DougMacG on November 21, 2019, 12:44:35 PM
We are a couple of months behind where we were on the calendar during the year of the Clinton impeachment.  The impeachment in that case started in September.
 Was passed in the House in mid-December and the Senate trial ended with acquittal in February.  This being an election year, the House might speed it up by a couple of months and the process would still go through to Super Tuesday. 

This is a nightmare for Democrats.  https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-now-beating-democrats-in-wisconsin-as-support-for-impeachment-plummets/

They've generated a couple of meaningless headlines that did not hold up to scrutiny.  Meanwhile the polls for impeachment tumble.  Even the haters of Trump at some point in year four are going to want to throw him out the other way, in the upcoming election.

Where is the Democrat impeachment off-ramp?  They could quit anytime including today; no further hearings are scheduled.  They could just say we have other business to attend.  If they do quit , when they do, President Trump will declare himself vindicated.  If Democrats never stop, Trump will be acquitted by the Senate - and Trump will declare himself vindicated.  So the question remains, who do further hearings benefit?

I agree with what Crafty said earlier, the (Democratic) purpose of this exercise is to weaken Trump for the election.  At this point, it seems they are strengthening him.  VDH generously describes the hearings as monotony.  People can watch the obnoxious chair gavel down his opponents with the clock in mid-sentence with a deplorable lack of curiosity in terms of getting at the other side of it or getting at the truth.  It's a show trial.  It's a circus.  No Republican witnesses are called.  No Trump witnesses are called.  Hearsay is allowed. People are testifying presumptions. The "whistleblower" controversy has been swept under the table.  No one is allowed to know the dubious origins of this.

The Democrats can continue hearings in the 'Intel' committee.  They can issue report and take this up in the Judiciary committee.  They can draft and vote articles of impeachment out of the Judiciary committee and debate and vote on those articles in the full House.  The more they rush it, the worse they look.  The longer they take the more they interfere with an election year.

If this is a losing cause for them, they should stop as soon as possible and hand this over to the voters.  If they run the full process with the limited days available in the House and pass impeachment over to a full trial in the Senate, they lose control over the clock, the calendar, the content and the witnesses called.  For one thing, Rep. Schiff, who seems to be lying on a material fact, most certainly will be called to testify under oath making a perjury trap likely.

My best guess at this point is they keep running this diversion past the FBI FISA-gate release in mid-December, but then at some point drop it without a full House vote, trying to play it both ways.  Protect their most vulnerable members yet damage Trump as much as possible.
Title: Impeachment Inquiry Canceled After 5 Episodes Due To Low Ratings
Post by: DougMacG on November 21, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
Babylon Bee (satire) makes my point so much more succinctly:

Impeachment Inquiry Canceled After 5 Episodes Due To Low Ratings
https://babylonbee.com/news/impeachment-inquiry-canceled-after-5-episodes-due-to-low-ratings
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 21, 2019, 05:27:06 PM
RickN:

What you have posted here seems worthy of considerable discussion in the public space, yet what you have brought to us I am seeing only here.

Why do you think that is?

Title: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment moves from Schiff to Nadler?
Post by: DougMacG on November 22, 2019, 07:14:59 AM
The moving-target accusations against Trump end in the next phase where Articles of Impeachment will become written in stone, unchangeable, if they are written at all.

Is it bribery?  Is it quid pro quo?  Is it treason?  Is it collusion?  [Is it Orange man bad?] Are they betting the whole farm on the phone call?  Will they 'Trump' up trivial charges that open the door for the Republican Senate to use take them look unserious?  Is their best witness a staffer who was not on the call?  Will they keep it simple or will they include the whole derangement, ad hominem mess?

The answer to all of this right now is that the Democrats themselves have no idea.

The direction of the nation will depend on the decision of people like my congressman Rep Dean Phillips D-MN3 who won a suburban swing district from an entrenched Republican, promised to be moderate and centrist but has voted up until has voted in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Ilhan Omar and Adam Schiff and mouthed the party line words like "bribery" in order to support the impeachment "inquiry".  What bribery?

Overplay your lousy hand Rep Phillips and Speaker Pelosi and away goes your majority.

This thing dies a quiet death in committee or else the Democrats will not be able to stop their own runaway freight train until it crashes into the electoral wall. 

I am expecting a period of relative public silence now while Democrats sort this out in their usual democratic way, in smoke filled back rooms with private arm twisting arguments amongst themselves out of the public view.

Soon they will emerge we will have their montage words of why they aren't moving forward to impeach hated-Trump with no evidence and no crime:  "We trust the voters more than we trust the Republican Senate to convict and remove this bad bad man."
Title: let scream yell break dance and have all their court jesters have their day
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2019, 08:43:18 AM
"Is it bribery?  Is it quid pro quo?  Is it treason?  Is it collusion?"

I would be shocked if the Dems do NOT impeach .

One can twist the arguments around a hundred times into different shapes of pretzels.

Noonan is correct by saying  Trump clearly tried to press the Ukrainians  into investigating Biden.

I don't prefer denying this .

I prefers simply that the Senate  respond that NO crime was committed.
no grounds for impeachment  and be done with it.

Then after the Dems finish their impeachment Trump Barr and crew hog wild exposing them and drive home it goes all the way up to BIG one - > Obama   (and of course the girl who belongs on this list :  http://www.themurky.com/wow/the-10-most-evil-women-rulers-in-history/)

We must also prevent Trump from doing any more dumb shit.
I am guessing it was not his idea to use the military aid to pressure the Ukranians but he certainly liked the idea and ran with it.
Not illegal but stupid and arrogant to do when he knows the Dems have him under a microscope with their spies all over the bureaucracy.

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 22, 2019, 09:07:57 AM
I saw the Noonan column, 'Trump defense has no defense'.  She also specified no crime committed. 

OMG! A politician had a partly political motive for a perfectly legitimate official action!  Has this ever happened before?!!

The Senate trial will necessarily examine in great depth the question of whether the Bidens deserved investigation (and they did), keeping the Biden crime family in the headlines and 6 Senators running for President, Warren, Sanders, Booker, Harris, Bennett, Klobuchar in the jury room all winter, instead of fuiund raising and lying on the stump,  even though they have all already made up their mind.  Let's see, 7 Democrats running for President are injured by impeachment, it puts the Dem House in jeopardy, Trump is clearly benefiting,  - and they don't know what to do!

What a tangled web we weave.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2019, 09:09:06 AM
Love Peggy, but at heart she is a Bush weenie Republican.

Here is my post today on my FB page:

As Soft Coup 3.0 plays its way in the House of Representatives, the simple question that occurs to me is this:

Why the fk wouldn't America's President want to know what the fk was up with our previous Vice President receiving approximately $3 MILLION (i.e. the total monies received by his son and bag man Hunter) from Ukraine?

Even more so given the modus operandi of Biden & Son; off the top of my head:

a) the deal with Sec. State Kerry's stepson in China (approved by Sec State Kerry?) involving an American company with dual use technology. Given the bandwidth used up by other matters this has received far less attention than it deserves, but I encourage all here to look into it.

b) the $1.5 BILLION Chinese investment with Hunter. I trust the salient details on this are already known (Hunter flew w dad on AF-2, dad accomplished nothing on the trip that was the purpose of the trip, Hunter scored the $1.5B)

It is very much worth noting that Obama-Hillary gave the reason for leaving Iraq was to free up bandwidth so we could "pivot to Asia". This was widely understood to mean responding to the Chinese militarizing and claiming the South China Sea-- where literally 1/3 of the world's trade sails (!!!!) Yet somehow there was utter flacidity. Witness witless Biden's comments about how the Chinese were no threat at all, really nice people, etc.

Helluva curious coincidence , , ,

c) and thanks to the President's special envoy, Rudy G, we now know about this:

https://www.americanthinker.com/…/so_hunter_biden_followed_…

d) Given the role Ukraine appeared to have played on behalf of the Dems in 2016 (the Manafort dirt, DNC's Chalupa and the Uke embassy, etc etc) and the DOJ's investigation into all this

WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T OUR PRESIDENT WANT TO KNOW "WHAT THE FK? WOULD YOU LOOK INTO THIS PLEASE?"
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2019, 09:11:36 AM
second post

Concerning the presumed Contempt of Congress/Obstruction charge:  If the Dems were unwilling to go to court about it, (see Bugsy Pelosi's "We're not going to limit ourselves to what the courts say" statement) what basis for it?
Title: Yes but ?
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2019, 10:21:22 AM
"WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T OUR PRESIDENT WANT TO KNOW "WHAT THE FK? WOULD YOU LOOK INTO THIS PLEASE?"

No doubt , but withholding approved funds at the tune of 400 Mill
as  leverage for this?

do you really  want to go down that road?   :|

It IS all political BS.
The impeachment is not going to sway anyone.
Trump won't be removed (Mitt Rodless can do what he wants).

Then (hopefully ) Barr et al will get us some offensive fireworks to send back to the Dems .
I don't expect a lot from the IG though. Since when can anyone think of an IG Horowitz report that has led to anything other then page 35 on the NYT ?

Although maybe it will give grounds for more investigation from Barr .


Hopefully Mr Durham can get more to the truth.




Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2019, 11:24:06 AM
"WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T OUR PRESIDENT WANT TO KNOW "WHAT THE FK? WOULD YOU LOOK INTO THIS PLEASE?"

"No doubt , but withholding approved funds at the tune of 400 Mill as  leverage for this? do you really  want to go down that road?"

Absolutely!  Tis a mystery to me that no seems willing to state the obvious.  Ukraine bribed our Vice President via $3M to his son, part of the ongoing shakedown operations of Biden & Son.  Ukraine is being bandied about as the third most corrupt country on the planet.  The new president was a fg comedian for god's sake-- why on earth shouldn't there be some probing and testing to see if he was going to be more of the same/a puppet of other corrupt interests or whether he was actually going to do something about corruption as he promised in his campaign?

To my way of thinking, this should have been done if Biden weren't running, (indeed it began before Biden announced, yes?) and Biden does not get off the hook because he elects to run.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2019, 01:26:28 PM
second

https://pjmedia.com/trending/trump-wants-to-have-senate-impeachment-trial-expects-joe-and-hunter-biden-to-show-up/


An attorney friend writes:

"We’ll see whether it actually goes like this.  If it does, it’s “Welcome to the Big Top, bitches!”

"My preference, of course, would be for a slow, methodical process that extends beyond the first Dem primary on February 3rd.  If it were me, I’d probably feature exhibits like the KGB archive demonstrating that Teddy Kennedy tried to do a deal with Russia, transcript after transcript of Obama’s calls with foreign leaders, the video of Obama talking about how much flexibility he’d have after the election, the letter from the Democrat senators leaning on Ukraine to help with the Mueller report, and so on. I might even subpoena folks like Christopher Steele, Nellie Ohr, and all of the fuckwads from Fusion GPS. "
Title: Solomon rapes Vindman in defense of his reporting on Burisma
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2019, 01:29:09 PM
https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/?fbclid=IwAR0JA33ABY2CkCf4xCFyAmB1_ORtS65P7skfX4HVbe6BNbJ9CTOsQcRnfMs
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2019, 03:07:47 PM
" .Ukraine bribed our Vice President via $3M to his son, part of the ongoing shakedown operations of Biden & Son.  "

funny every time I pass the CNN channel on the way to Turner Classic Movies

I see them claiming *this* conspiracy theory "HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED!!!!"

 :roll: :x

Title: IG report - sounds like bad news
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2019, 03:13:08 PM
already leaked

of course
white wash for Comey Stroz

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7716317/Inspector-generals-investigate-investigators-report-NOT-condemn-Comey-Strzok.html

no surprise sounds like
enough here to hit page 35 of NYTimes

as usual
no bite it sounds like already . we shall find out what Dec9?
probably by then we will know everything in it . especially if good for crats
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2019, 04:23:23 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-lawyer-with-anti-trump-bias-is-ex-fbi-official-facing-fisa-criminal-investigation
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 22, 2019, 09:14:07 PM
"WHY THE HELL WOULDN'T OUR PRESIDENT WANT TO KNOW "WHAT THE FK? WOULD YOU LOOK INTO THIS PLEASE?"

"No doubt , but withholding approved funds at the tune of 400 Mill as  leverage for this? do you really  want to go down that road?"

Absolutely!  Tis a mystery to me that no seems willing to state the obvious.  Ukraine bribed our Vice President via $3M to his son, part of the ongoing shakedown operations of Biden & Son.  Ukraine is being bandied about as the third most corrupt country on the planet.  The new president was a fg comedian for god's sake-- why on earth shouldn't there be some probing and testing to see if he was going to be more of the same/a puppet of other corrupt interests or whether he was actually going to do something about corruption as he promised in his campaign?

To my way of thinking, this should have been done if Biden weren't running, (indeed it began before Biden announced, yes?) and Biden does not get off the hook because he elects to run.

Similar point made by the last caller today on Seb Gorka.  Pretty good radio to have Prof. Victor Davis Hanson and Crafty as guests in the same hour.  ) 

He didn't save enough time for you.  Post the rest here? 

It's time for your own show.  )
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2019, 11:23:30 PM
 :-D :-D :-D

In the few seconds I had he really seemed to like my point, but in embracing it there will be some cognitive dissonance with previous defenses offered , , ,

I will try again on Monday.

TAC!
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 23, 2019, 07:11:37 AM
:-D :-D :-D

In the few seconds I had he really seemed to like my point, but in embracing it there will be some cognitive dissonance with previous defenses offered , , ,

I will try again on Monday.

TAC!

With about 10 minutes left he said the lines are full and we're going to get to all of them.  I think he wanted to close the show and close the week with your point.
https://www.sebgorka.com/broadcast/11-22-19/   50:45

Some of that cognitive dissonance of the defense is definitional.  There was an Andy McCarthy column a short while back warning Trump supporters to stop denying quid pro quo as the defense.  Quid pro quo for the country IS the point of foreign aid. It helps us to help them; we have conditions attached to our generosity.  What a President cannot take is a quid pro quo for himself, i.e. a bribe. 

If the Bidens are tied up in Ukraine corruption, it IS in our national interest to investigate that, know that, to stop it and to prevent others from doing that in the future.  If the Bidens have the appearance of being tied up in Ukraine corruption and turn out to be innocent of wrongdoing, it is still in our national interest to push for investigation until we get to the bottom of it even if the outcome is to clear them.

The name Biden or the fact that he is entering another political race or the coincidence that he is running for the same office Trump seeks to keep does not give him a free pass.  He is 'targeted' because his apparent corruption is out in the open.  He was mentioned in conjunction with rooting out all known ties of corruption between the two countries, 2016 interference, DNC server, crowdstrike, etc.

Trump did not say, make up dirt.  He asked them to "look into what happened there". 

Sarah Palin didn't say, "I can see Russia from my living room".  It was Tina Fey who used words to that effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=JXL86v8NoGk&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HsyEvr5Pnw


It was Adam Schiff who said, "I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent", not President Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw5QwkP05Ww
We thought he was way out of line doing that but he put it in the record and it stuck in the closed minds of the Trump deranged.

Those words are not in the transcript, but "make up dirt" is exactly what HRC and the DNC paid Fusion GPS to do with the Steele Dossier.  Foreign interference in our election.  Quid pro quo all for political gain against our national interest.  It's all there and they have no outrage.

What we have here is not dissonance, it's projection.

----------------------
SNL Biden v Palin debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iyIbbxVzrU
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on November 23, 2019, 08:08:40 AM
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-16-at-11.51.35-AM.png?w=906&ssl=1

https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/image001-1.png?w=740&ssl=1

https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-17-at-5.28.01-PM.png?w=1000&ssl=1
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on November 23, 2019, 10:34:10 AM
Another good list by John Solomon responding to Vindman's testimony.

These lists are good for understanding the sequence of events as it relates to various issues.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/ (https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/)
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 23, 2019, 10:48:02 AM
Doug:  Perfect for the Political Humor thread as well.

Rick:  Great minds think alike-- see Entry 130  :-)

Title: Sondland not a Trump donor
Post by: ccp on November 24, 2019, 06:53:31 AM
I kept reading how Sondland donated to Trump

when in fact that is or never was true:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/24/gordon-sondland-jeb-donor-never-trumper-key-impeachment-witness/

Did he lie to Trump people to get a job or was this all MSM fake news ?

or both ?

Is he banging Nicole Wallace?
Is he looking for job at CNN ?

Title: shifty schyster at it again going after Nunes
Post by: ccp on November 24, 2019, 07:07:47 AM
political revenge job:


https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/943055/1

yet he has no clue who the leaker is.  The only one in DC that has no idea.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 24, 2019, 11:22:24 AM
Worth noting too is the witness  intimidation  of Sondland by means  of  demos at his restaurants and noises about boycotts.  Don't have citation on this at the moment , , ,
Title: Witness Intimidation of Sondland
Post by: G M on November 24, 2019, 05:53:38 PM
Worth noting too is the witness  intimidation  of Sondland by means  of  demos at his restaurants and noises about boycotts.  Don't have citation on this at the moment , , ,

https://nypost.com/2019/11/21/gordon-sondland-says-hes-received-many-threats-since-impeachment-began/
Title: The Bribery Bait and Switch
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2019, 10:01:33 AM
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/24/the-bribery-bait-and-switch/
Title: Obama State Dept: Do not investigate Soros group
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2019, 03:08:12 PM
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016
Title: guy Snodgrass
Post by: ccp on November 25, 2019, 04:33:15 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Snodgrass
Title: The retreat begins?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2019, 04:57:13 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/democratic-congresswoman-brenda-lawrence-changes-mind-on-trump-impeachment/
Title: Dershowitz on the court order to appear
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 26, 2019, 09:22:21 AM
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/472087-presidents-are-not-kings-but-neither-is-congress-above-the-law
Title: leftist legal "experts"s sequel
Post by: ccp on November 26, 2019, 03:55:54 PM
The Larry Tribes show I guess:

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-impeachment/2019/11/26/id/943484/

I don't remember did we have this sort of thing with Clinton or is this now Nadler's getting his shot at Trump?

More yawns while  legal arguments are twisted around for political purposes.

More solitaire for me.


Title: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Dem Exit Strategy
Post by: DougMacG on November 27, 2019, 07:40:36 AM
If I were Speaker Nancy Pelosi and I lost control of this once already by allowing the impeachment inquiry vote, I would end this before Christmas recess.

Make the strongest case for impeachment possible in the Judiciary Committee, vote for impeachment in the Judiciary Committee, and then make the following excuse to not hold a vote in  the full House:

'We don't trust the (evil, corrupt) Republican Senate to do the right thing since they already said they wouldn't convict and remove this President, so we are going to turn our work over to the people instead.  Let the voters decide.'

Prediction of the moment:  There isn't going to be a trial in the Senate.  Therefore there can't be an impeachment vote in the House.

Trump is acquitted - again.
Title: WTF Rudy?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2019, 12:55:13 PM


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/nyregion/giuliani-ukraine-business-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on November 27, 2019, 04:32:55 PM
" .https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/nyregion/giuliani-ukraine-business-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage"

Ukraine seems to know how to dirty up everyone!
and everyone in DC seems to be happy to go there and  play

Title: Rudy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2019, 10:46:59 PM
NYT #FAKENEWS:
I did NOT pursue a business opportunity in Ukraine, as they misrepresented. I could have helped them recover $7B in stolen money, but I didn’t. Was paid ZERO.  They attack me because I have exposed their hypocrisy & how they covered up Biden’s massive corruption!
Title: ICIG Michael Atkinson Altered Whistleblower Forms to Allow for CIA Leaker
Post by: DougMacG on December 01, 2019, 08:12:42 AM
ICIG Michael Atkinson Altered Whistleblower Forms to Allow for CIA Leaker – His Wife Just Happens to be Connected to Russian Collusion Hoaxer – Fusion GPS

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/exclusive-icig-michael-atkinson-altered-whistleblower-forms-to-allow-for-cia-leaker-his-wife-just-happens-to-be-connected-to-russian-collusion-hoaxer-fusion-gps/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 01, 2019, 09:35:35 AM
didn't we already know the whistlesucker law was changed for second hand  person to utilize it ?

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on December 01, 2019, 09:48:19 AM
didn't we already know the whistlesucker law was changed for second hand  person to utilize it ?

We thought we knew it and they thought they debunked it.  We knew that as recently as ___ (May 2019?) the process required first hand knowledge.  Therefore we suspected who changed it roughly when and why.  But finding the documents and turning partisan suspicions into known, provable facts is a BFD, IMHO. 

I did not know that the person-who-did-it’s wife was connected to Fusion GPS!

Small world.
Title: Sekulow
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 01, 2019, 06:54:21 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/01/us/politics/trump-sekulow-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Title: Page denies any bias at FBI
Post by: ccp on December 02, 2019, 07:04:12 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/podcast/2019/12/01/lisa-page-speaks-doj-has-abandoned-truth-and-independence/

Hillary and team treated with total kid gloves despite a lot of evidence of crimes

and Trump and team treated like guilty terrorists even without evidence of crime

yet as all Dems do , they deny any bias.

Title: Impeachment in Name Only
Post by: DougMacG on December 02, 2019, 08:16:43 AM
If this goes through the House with only Democrats supporting it, it is exactly the opposite of what the voters intended for the process.

As it sits today, at least 2 Democrats will no and no Republicans will vote yes.  If that changes by only a handful of votes, this is still a partisan, political exercise certain to fail in the Senate. 

66 million people voted against Donald Trump and we know most of them still feel that way since he has governed exactly as he promised.  In less than one year we have available to us the other way the constitution gives us to remove a President we don't like, an election.  But this can't wait even though we know it can't succeed.  In other words, what House Democrats are doing is censure, not impeachment, no matter what they call it.

They say we have only had two or three of these in history, but in fact we have never had anything like this in our history, a partisan impeachment vote intended only to scar a sitting President during his reelection campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/18/779938819/fractured-into-factions-what-the-founders-feared-about-impeachment

Title: Agree . Trump right in not showing up
Post by: ccp on December 02, 2019, 02:18:57 PM
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/robert-ray-bartiromo-house-judiciary/2019/12/02/id/944066/

The Dems and their media mob will go overboard to simply make everything he or his people say or do look bad.
So why go?
Title: Soft Coup: Impeachment Report and False analogy to Clinton
Post by: DougMacG on December 04, 2019, 07:23:47 AM
Impeachment Report:  https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------
In the Clinton impeachment, everyone was in agreement on the facts.  The question was what to do about it.  To Dems, it was (only) about sex.  He lied to the country - about sex.  He committed perjury - about sex.  Perjury is a crime, potentially a felony and it does real damage to our justice system.  But it was arguably not a crime against the state, i.e. high crime.  He didn't take the side of our enemies at war, for example.  In that sense Dems were right and he was not removed from office.

Back to Schiff and Trump:  Even if he was guilty, Trump's misdeed(s) also don't rise to the level of high crime on a level like treason.  Even if his motive in pursuing investigation of corruption really was to get Biden, it wasn't a crime.  It was a corruption investigation.  Let the facts fall where they may.  Even if it was soliciting 'foreign interference in an election', isn't that exactly what the Obama administration and Clinton campaign did with no Leftist [selective] outrage?

More importantly, there is no evidence or even testimony of a crime.  They are prosecuting a script made up by Schiff, "I want you to make up dirt on my opponent".  THAT would be foreign interference in an election.  But that isn't what happened.  We know they will never come up with evidence that it did because we already have the transcript. 

[Coincidentally, "make up dirt on my opponent" is exactly what the Clinton campaign hired Christopher Steele to do in his Dossier.  No penalty, no crime, no outrage, no consequence.]

Next is the Leftist (il)logic I call, 'and another thing'.  When the first point is weak and unproven, they move on to another point to add to the first, but it can't add on to nothing, it needs to stand on its own when the first point is bogus.

Look at the report:

Point One in the Report [This needs to be REALLY BIG]: ... drum roll please ... Trump forced out the Ambassador.   OMG!  How could he??!!

Point Two:  Trump trusted his own people over the deep state.

Point Three:  Trump held up military assistance that his predecessor wouldn't give them at all.  He held it up over cooperation on an investigation.

Then they go on to prosecuting the Schiff script, equating what didn't happen with interference, followed by calling out his refusal to cooperate with a witch trial.

Was there any precedent for an administration refusing to cooperate with Congress?  Does a Fast and Furious contempt charge come to mind?
-----------------------------------------------------
Report word search: Pence  = 60.  Why take down just one of them?  What did HE do wrong?
Title: now they delayed till after the holidays; of course
Post by: ccp on December 04, 2019, 07:36:27 AM
as they cannot come up with the poll numbers they thought they would
they keep pushing it back

still debating whether to hold vote while all the while having their operative pollsters
trying to figure out the best POLITICAL outcome.

This is NOTHING about their phony "CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY", or "CRISES" , or even more silly , "UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW".

Title: Impeachment, Judiciary Committee Hearings
Post by: DougMacG on December 04, 2019, 09:16:34 AM
OBJECTION: Your Honor, the question requires a conclusion to be made by the witness.

OBJECTION: Your Honor, the question assumes facts not in evidence.

OBJECTION: Your Honor, counsel is misstating the evidence.

They found 3 'experts' who agree with them and one who hates Trump but disagrees on impeachment.  The first round of this is a loser.  Odd what they don't ask the person who disagrees.  The optics of showing just one side are glaring.  The answers to all questions make it all look scripted.  There was not a question asked where they didn't already know the answer.  They were chosen to testify specifically for their view on this.  Facts are narrowed by the 'witnesses' to fit the crime accused.   MANY hypotheticals are presented that don't  match the facts here.

The cross examination MIGHT be interesting.  At least it won't likely be scripted.
------
Prof Jonathon Turley:  "This isn't improvisational jazz."

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 04, 2019, 12:05:53 PM
Doug:

Really like your Post 161:

"Even if his motive in pursuing investigation of corruption really was to get Biden, it wasn't a crime."

EXACTLY SO!  Very pithy!  The only change I would make would be to say "Not only was it not a crime, it was entirely legally correct.  America's President is our number one law enforcement officer, and going after possible corruption of an American Vice President in the commission of his duties is correct and proper.


[Coincidentally, "make up dirt on my opponent" is exactly what the Clinton campaign hired BRITISH SPY Christopher Steele to do in his Dossier WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE RUSSIANS.  No penalty, no crime, no outrage, no consequence.]

Separately some good points made in this surprisingly rational piece on the NBC site:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/impeachment-report-house-democrats-too-muddled-change-any-minds-ncna1095636
Title: Media pretending Uke meddling didn't happen
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 04, 2019, 12:18:31 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nation-reporter-media-pretending-ukraine-meddling-didnt-happen
Title: Pam Karlan
Post by: ccp on December 04, 2019, 02:56:25 PM
self described , "snarky, bisexual, Jewish women"

and of course Obama and Clinton donor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_S._Karlan

Breitbart poster who apparently worked with her states some of her claims dishonest:

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/dishonest-witness-pam-karlan-latest-act-at-impeachment-circus/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on December 05, 2019, 12:34:39 PM
Clearly, Prof Karlan did not thoroughly research her snarky attempt at humor.  If so, she would have realized that Barron Trump is named after Barron Hilton, the son of Conrad Hilton who succeeded his father as CEO of Hilton Hotels.  She needs a refresher course on proper names and homonyms. 
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on December 05, 2019, 11:17:07 PM
If I understand speaker Pelosi correctly, she is saying that the House Democratic majority is a co-equal branch with the Trump White House. That is not right. The House  is only one chamber of the co equal, legislative branch. More accurately, what the Democrat house majority house and Republican majority Senate can agree on, is a co-equal branch with the Trump White House, roughly speaking.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 06, 2019, 05:53:12 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/found-footage-dems-expert-witness-admits-deep-seated-hatred-trump/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=huckabee&fbclid=IwAR0_I2hlI-zwu8sXj8qc-BODKFZIOoNOU0mJAB5CFMnh0gGgFP5bgrZbjZc
Title: yup, the Larry show
Post by: ccp on December 08, 2019, 09:59:19 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/08/report-democrats-consulting-with-radical-pro-impeachment-harvard-professor/

where was this liberal when Hillary was found to have committed multiple crimes?

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 09, 2019, 12:24:20 PM
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham


This is a very quiet big deal.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: rickn on December 09, 2019, 12:32:27 PM
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham


This is a very quiet big deal.

And the media will try and keep it very "quiet."  Unless you meant "quite."

"Hello Brennan, Clapper, and the rest of you non-DOJ sources who hoped the DOJ would be your cutout.  We know that it wasn't just the DOJ that was involved."
Title: Horowitz Report in Context
Post by: rickn on December 09, 2019, 12:34:57 PM
And the Attorney General also releases a statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-inspector-generals-report-review-four-fisa (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-inspector-generals-report-review-four-fisa)



https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham


"This is a very quiet big deal."


https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/12/some-call-it-performance-failure.php


"In the same vein.  I think Durham’s press release, in tandem with Barr’s, signals interesting stuff to come.  Like the Horowitz report, I don’t think it makes sense to hope for a silver bullet.  But I’d be willing to bet we’ll recognize some of the names referred for prosecution.  And I’ll also bet that the Durham report will be scathing."


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/horowitz-report-cia-rejected-steele-dossier-as-internet-rumor


"Of course, Brennan took it as gospel, or pretended to.  And he raced to brief Harry Reid so he could engineer leaks against Trump."

Title: dershowitz on levin on "obstruction of congress"
Post by: ccp on December 10, 2019, 07:09:40 AM
both agree there is no such thing as obstruction of Congress by a President?

by the same rational Trump could accuse Congress of obstruction of the executive branch

the branches are co equal; trump doesn't have to simply bend to the will of Congress.........

the judicial branch is the arbiter.
Title: Ivanka friends with Steele
Post by: ccp on December 10, 2019, 08:35:54 AM
you have got to be kidding:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-christopher-steele-friendship-004147101.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIhYhrOJAg

what a joke. :-o
Title: 2 thumbs up for Josh Hawley!
Post by: ccp on December 11, 2019, 02:41:26 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/sen-hawley-drops-a-bomb-on-horowitz-the-collusion-here-was-between-the-dnc-and-the-fbi/
Title: Larry the lib
Post by: ccp on December 12, 2019, 08:24:37 AM
Larry Trib(al)

defending *his* scheme:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/laurence-tribe-gop-impeachment-trump-085137976.html

why did he go into congress as one of the dem experts on impeachment.
he obviously has been one of the forces pushing this since the day Trump was elected
I would love to see him and Prof. Dershowitz debate............

Title: Re: Larry the lib
Post by: DougMacG on December 12, 2019, 08:31:00 AM
ccp:
Larry Trib(al)   ...
I would love to see him and Prof. Dershowitz debate............
-----------

This is from June, before 'the phone call'.  Funny to see Tribe favored impeachment before the offense occurred.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/harvard-law-scholars-tribe-and-dershowitz-take-impeachment-duel-to-twitter/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment vote coming, articles
Post by: DougMacG on December 12, 2019, 09:54:50 AM
This morning I wrote again to my 'centrist' 'moderate' swing district Representative (Dean Phillips, D-MN3) to share my ideas on impeachment.  In a way, I hope he votes wrong, exposing his own naked partisanship.  If he gets this right, let the voters decide, he divides his own party.  What he should do is split with his party and then leave it if he is truly independent.  He isn't and he won't.

Funny that "abuse of power" is soon what Democrats will be charged with.  Let's see how they like it.
---------------------
Media montage on Rush L just now:  "a handful of Democrats are getting cold feet"

Is it cold feet, bad polling numbers, or just tired of being wrong - on everything?
---------------------
Future trivia question, here are the articles of impeachment:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/10/read-full-text-articles-impeachment-against-donald-trump/4382795002/

Article I: Abuse of power
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment and that the President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

Story Continued Below

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents Within and Outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government–conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested—

Story Continued Below
(A) the release of $391 million of United 5 States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

MOST READ

Louie Gohmert
CONGRESS

GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert publicly identifies person purported to be whistleblower
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin
WHITE HOUSE

Judge rejects government’s motion to toss suit over missing Trump-Putin meeting notes
Pete Buttigieg
2020 ELECTIONS

The left nukes Buttigieg over McKinsey work
Mike Pence
IMPEACHMENT

Pence rejects calls to declassify new impeachment testimony
US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
LEGAL

U.S. quietly drops 2 more prosecutions linked to Trump Iran prisoner swap

Previous Slide
Next Slide
These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

In all this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self- governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article II: Obstruction of Congress
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—

Story Continued Below
Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment. President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the "sole Power of Impeachment" vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

Story Continued Below
(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Unconstitutional Impeachment BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ
Post by: DougMacG on December 13, 2019, 04:40:58 AM
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473849-two-house-articles-of-impeachment-fail-to-meet-constitutional-standards

House Democrats have announced the grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on which they plan to seek the impeachment of President Trump. Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

That danger is now coming to pass, as House Democrats seek for the first time in American history to impeach a president without having at least some bipartisan support in Congress. Nor can they find any support in the words of the Constitution, or in the history of its adoption. A majority of the House is simply making it up as they go along in the process, thus placing themselves not only above the law but above the Constitution.

ADVERTISEMENT
In doing this, they follow the view of Representative Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.” From her view, shared by some others, the criteria for impeaching a president is whatever a majority of the House says it is, regardless of what the Constitution mandates. This reductionistic and lawless view confuses what a majority of the House could get away with, if there is no judicial review, and what the mandated duty of all House members is, which is to support, defend, and apply the Constitution as written, not as it can be stretched to fit the actions of an opposition or controversial president.

If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void.

An analogy to consider from ordinary criminal cases may be imperfect but informative. If a grand jury were to indict a citizen on an unconstitutional “crime,” like marrying a person of a different race, the trial judge would immediately dismiss the indictment and refuse to subject the defendant to a trial. Indeed, the House plays a role similar to that of a grand jury in the impeachment context, and the Senate plays a role similar to the trial court. In the presidential impeachment context, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides and rules on the legal and evidentiary issues.

This is all uncharted ground, and it is difficult to predict how it will play out in the short term. In the long term, it is highly unlikely that President Trump will be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate controlled by Republicans. However, in the meantime, the unconstitutional action by a majority of the House to impeach a president on grounds not specified in the Constitution will certainly do considerable damage to the rule of law.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 13, 2019, 06:11:45 AM
yesterday some D congresswomen was giving her speech
saying don't pay any attention to the parade of constitutional lawyers who are trying to distract by saying the impeachment is not within the framework of the Constitution

the DNC way of saying only listen to Larry the lib - and Gerhardt , Feldman, and Karlan.

listen to THEIR constitutional lawyers who are truth sayers
and blow off the opinions of others who are just muddying the waters here.

now move along
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on December 13, 2019, 06:59:18 AM
yesterday some D congresswomen was giving her speech
saying don't pay any attention to the parade of constitutional lawyers who are trying to distract by saying the impeachment is not within the framework of the Constitution

the DNC way of saying only listen to Larry the lib - and Gerhardt , Feldman, and Karlan.

listen to THEIR constitutional lawyers who are truth sayers
and blow off the opinions of others who are just muddying the waters here.

now move along

I listened off and on all day trying to figure out if this is a parody.

There are such simple responses possible to every point made on impeachment.  Did Trump say the investigation he wanted was only about his reelection? Of course not. Is there any other possible, legitimate, national public purpose for wanting an investigation of corruption that connects the two countries?  Yes, it's his sworn responsibility as President. 

Is there any precedent of any other administration not asking how high when the House led by the other party asks them to jump?  Yes.  cf. Pres. Obama, Eric Holder, fast and furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi docs, HRC emails.   Did the House exhaust every other remedy first, e.g. the courts?  No.

When your opponent says this process is "rigged and rushed", have you done everything possible to make sure that claim cannot and does not stick?   No.  Just the opposite.  It's rigged, it's rushed and it's blatant. 

They wanted so badly to vote yesterday, and then suddenly they didn't.

How can Democrats who have never admitted they are wrong stop their own train wreck?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 13, 2019, 07:58:46 AM
" .They wanted so badly to vote yesterday, and then suddenly they didn't."

now they "voted"

BUT
the vote is to simply move out of Dem controlled *judiciary committee* to the full house and (please God , no) torture us with more grandstanding from more members of  the whole House ( the bartender  ,Green , Hirono, et al) for another 2 weeks
so they can vote a Christmas gift to the Senate.

Interesting I have not seem our old friend Maxine lately .  Has she been out there?



Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on December 13, 2019, 09:42:41 AM
" .They wanted so badly to vote yesterday, and then suddenly they didn't."

now they "voted"

BUT
the vote is to simply move out of Dem controlled *judiciary committee* to the full house and (please God , no) torture us with more grandstanding from more members of  the whole House ( the bartender  ,Green , Hirono, et al) for another 2 weeks
so they can vote a Christmas gift to the Senate.

Interesting I have not seem our old friend Maxine lately .  Has she been out there?

Their grandstanding favors us.  What they can't do anymore is have unanswered grandstanding.  Each time one of them overstates their case (when words come out of their mouths), it is is fodder for their opponents and makes the whole effort look bad.

The guy who must be most nervous right now (besides Joe Biden and every Trump district and swing district Democrat) is Chief Justice John Roberts. 

McConnell could dismiss this in a minute on a majority vote but more strategically he will take the impeachment trial very, very seriously.  Let the House Managers make their full case, while objecting to anything hearsay, conjecture, facts not in evidence, or requires the witness to make a conclusion.  That should take about a half day.  Then put on a defense that takes the rest of the winter, hopefully longer, interrupting as often as possible for judicial confirmations, ratifying new trade agreements, budget hearings, etc., while Bernie, Butti and Trump rallies play out in the heartland.

The whole Biden corruption case is fair game for the defense; it is brought up by the prosecution and part of the context of what Trump was dealing with when these words and events were unfolding.  Democrats also brought up Biden's corruption in China.  Dumb move.  All fair game now.  I don't see how Biden survives all this and I don't see how networks can cover everything for the prosecution and break away from the defense.  Their 93% negative Trump coverage rating is about to collapse in the heat of an election year. 

The Democrats need to find some way to kill this monster they created before it gets to the Senate.  They are unifying the right and losing the middle.  They see their own polling plunge but they don't see an exit that doesn't hand Trump a HUGE victory.  They will have numerous defections in the House even if this passes.  Hopefully Republicans won't.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2019, 11:04:53 AM
A key point,  perhaps THE key point, is that the Dems and their running dogs in the Pravdas have gotten away so far with making the request to look into Biden & Son as looking for dirt for personal gain.  That is why in the polls half the country supports impeachment. 

Simply voting down the impeachment quickly runs the risk of affirming the stink of this lie for the general election.

I favor a proper trial, with Schiff, Ciamarello, Joe & Hunter, et al being called as witnesses and let the Dems twist in the wind.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 13, 2019, 01:09:19 PM
" .I favor a proper trial"

Rush today was pushing the concept - why bother .  It makes no difference whether is a trial or not - the left media will criticize Republicans no matter what.

The Democrat show in the Congress is not changing any minds
and any Republican show in the Senate will not (likely) either

I can't predict the future but I am inclined after weighing the pros and cons leaning towards Rush's conclusion

Dispense with the bullshit going through the motions and  just end this .  The Media DemParty industrial  complex is going to do what they do no matter what.

Just my take.

Besides SSS (Shifty shyster schiff) , Ciamerello and Joe and Hunter probably would not show up in the Senate.

You really think Joe, and the stripper's boyfriend and father of her child, and Adam are going to show up in the Senate.
no more than Trump would show up in the House.
the whistle sucker would have a phalanx of DNC lawyers surrounding him and he would have mask on and his voice would be altered
to protect his identity........... :wink:



Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 15, 2019, 04:42:32 AM
I think I get it.
Trump is playing the Clinton impeachment strategy

new North American trade "deal" . (sell out)
China trade "deal" (sell out)

ready to announce troop reduction in Afghanistan

new announcement every week if not daily like bubba .
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 15, 2019, 09:29:52 AM
Why do you say USMCA is a sell out?

Why do you think Phase One of China deal is a sell out? (I share concerns here)
Title: The Impeachment will continue , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2019, 10:36:16 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/impeachment-moves-to-senate-get-ready-for-a-scramble-and-a-january-surprise
Title: Grounds for Impeachment, Obama 2014, IRS Targeting
Post by: DougMacG on December 17, 2019, 07:22:13 AM
Bringing this forward.  No impeachment thread is complete without it, IMHO.  The only possible rationale for not impeaching over this is that it would have failed in the Democratic Senate.  Under the new rules, Obama could have been impeached at least a handful of times.  This was exactly what they allege now, using the  powers of the office to gain advantage in reelection.

https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1709.msg120465#msg120465

IRS Targeting Scandal
« Reply #1069 on: October 30, 2019, 10:11:00 AM »
Go to page 188:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REPORT%20-%20IRS%20&%20TIGTA%20Mgmt%20Failures%20Related%20to%20501(c)(4)%20(Sept%205%202014,%209-9-14%20update).pdf

IRS Targeting - 700 conservative groups were prevented from raising money and participating (against Obama's reelection and policies) by action / inaction of the federal bureaucracy, while the IRS commissioner was visiting the White House 500 times more often than his predecessor.
-----
Read the detail from Page 188 of the report whose title claims, "both liberal and conservatives groups received the same bad treatment and were targeted by the IRS":
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/reports

"104 conservative groups were asked 1552 questions.  7 liberal groups were asked a total of 33 questions.

100% of liberal group applications were approved."

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REPORT%20-%20IRS%20&%20TIGTA%20Mgmt%20Failures%20Related%20to%20501(c)(4)%20(Sept%205%202014,%209-9-14%20update).pdf

100% [all] of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12" were denied tax-exempt status for two years coming into Obama's reelection.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323873904578571363311816922

That's not the same bad treatment for right and left, as alleged in the majority report.

All of this swept under the rug - even by our side.   (

Who reads to page 188 of a Senate Subcommittee Report?  It should have been Article One of Impeachment.  EVERYONE would have seen it there.  He cheated in reelection.  Should have been impeached.  And that's just the Democrats view of 2019.  Where were they then?
Title: Re: The Impeachment will continue , , , "January Surprise"
Post by: DougMacG on December 17, 2019, 08:50:36 AM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/impeachment-moves-to-senate-get-ready-for-a-scramble-and-a-january-surprise

I was thinking of Trump and Republican moves when I saw the "January Surprises" title, like Trump deciding to testify, but of course it will be Democrats who will keep adding to the drama in the new year.  As Byron York wisely notes, see the Kavanaugh hearings.

The articles were written vaguely, intentionally.  In the eyes of the Dems, further abuse and further obstruction is all relevant.  "This is a crime in progress." 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has just said that the trial will be limited to the testimony already conducted.  Chief Justice John Roberts will have some say in that; he will err on the side of allowing nearly everything that either side can reasonably argue.  The longer the House Managers' prosecution side takes and the wider it goes, the more time the defense will take to present the other side, while Sanders and Warren (and Klobuchar) are grounded.   

Biden will find his corrupt family business anally probed with a microscope with worldwide broadcast.  America has managed to mostly look the other way so far but this is going to get bigger and uglier.  Bidens' business, Ukraine and China is all relevant to Trump's state of mind when he did (or did not do) what is alleged. 

Speaking of January surprises, how about a Supreme Court vacancy during the trial?

How about a February trial instead of January?  What's the rush?   )

The Clinton impeachment trial of 1999 took 5 weeks plus a two week delay over the holidays.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/this-day-in-politics-feb-12-1999-401098

I will not be surprised if Trump takes the stand for the defense.  He is a showman and this is the stage.

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 17, 2019, 09:31:14 AM
"I will not be surprised if Trump takes the stand for the defense.  He is a showman and this is the stage."

God forbid!    :-o .

The tweets do enough self damage.

no doubt he will commit under oath perjury.

Is one thing when he denies the sun came up in the morning on twitter but under oath in a Senate impeachment trial.

Let Barr do his thing.





Title: We are all just public servants
Post by: ccp on December 18, 2019, 06:42:44 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/12/18/lisa-page-treatment-impeachment-inquiry-public-servants-treated/

like at least one  postal workers and at least one Copyright
employees I knew.

the Fed government employees get more protections than most if not all in the private sector
as far as I can tell

she is so full of phony self pity
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment in 'Trump districts'
Post by: DougMacG on December 18, 2019, 07:32:32 AM
There is watch today for the vote of House Dems who won their seat in districts that Trump won.  That understates their problem.  Trump is up significantly since 2016, more than the polls say, and was not on the ballot in 2018.  Trump is up 6 points since the impeachment inquiry began, see Gallup today.   House Democrats in next year's contested districts are the ones who should be nervous.  That includes I think any district they won by less than 5-10 points in 2016 or 2018.  Those representatives really should abstain from this vote and say, this isn't what I came here to do.  Just my opinion.
Title: protecting Democracy
Post by: ccp on December 19, 2019, 05:48:33 AM
upholding their Constitutional "duties":

https://pjmedia.com/trending/nancy-pelosi-signals-she-may-freeze-impeachment-after-vote-so-trump-cant-claim-senate-vindication/

this highlights the  phony political gamesmanship and  grandstanding even more.



Title: Dems . Solemn - Joy - and next in 11/20
Post by: ccp on December 19, 2019, 06:56:44 AM
Do they really think they are fooling anyone with this show?:

https://www.google.com/search?q=solemn+facial+images&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjny6jM-8HmAhWRl-AKHVLiBhUQsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1440&bih=789

this is what we know they really feel:

https://www.google.com/search?q=joy+facial+expressions+images&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX0OXr-8HmAhWkdd8KHU1YAC8QsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1440&bih=789

I hope we can turn their faces to this after November  '20 this is what I want to see:

https://www.google.com/search?q=images+of+exasperation&tbm=isch&source=univ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip18Gc_cHmAhUtTt8KHYfyCu8QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1440&bih=789
Title: Dershowitz first time to my knowledge takes on Larry
Post by: ccp on December 19, 2019, 05:23:16 PM
Tribe :


https://www.newsmax.com/alandershowitz/hamilton-pelosi-tribe-senate/2019/12/19/id/946659/


well we know which one gets invited to Martha's Vineyard parties.
Title: Tribe responds to Dershowitz's claim
Post by: ccp on December 20, 2019, 07:07:16 AM
not bringing the impeachment to the Senate is  foolish  on every level!

Tribe says  (I believe it was  HIS idea)  Pelosi is brilliant
and of course McD of MSLSD would enthusiastically agree

From  the author on 'HOW TO END  A PRESIDENCY' .(Trump's of course )coincidentally written and published in past few yrs

https://www.yahoo.com/news/laurence-tribe-donald-trump-impeachment-094014325.html

TRibe Tries to explain that all the evidence should be heard in the Senate (though it was not in the House)

In other words the prosecution's rights should be protected
while Dershowitz's more plausible claim that not sending the impeachment to the Senate is completely contrary to every
legal dogma in innocent to proven guilty

If you are not going to send to the Senate then the case should not have been brought up.
Even as non lawyer or expert Dershowitz positions just seems to be so much more and firm ground
and Tribe sounds like a jilted prof who has TDS trying to twist legal arguments on their head just to get "rid of " *this * president.





Title: Impeachment in Name Only??
Post by: DougMacG on December 20, 2019, 08:41:12 AM
I just couldn't figure out the Democrats' end game.  How can they ride on this freight train to its conclusion in the House, mark and stain Trump, and then stop it on a dime to not let Trump end it in with a Senate acquittal.  I was SO close to predicting this most bizarre act by Pelosi - but missed it.  Pass it in the House, then 'not send' it to the Senate?  What??

I wasted time this morning trying to find that necessary step in the constitution but came up with empty.

 *    "The House of Representatives shall have...the sole Power of Impeachment."
 *    "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

Sorry, but I don't see a step in between for method of "transmission" required to move it from the House to the Senate.  That has to do with Senate rules and can be changed since no one contemplated this.
 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf

Now Pelosi has 'delayed' and they left town for the year without sending what they passed to the Senate.  W.T.F.?

It brings up so many questions.  Did the Dem House members know she was going to do this when they voted?  Did the whole group agree on this strategy, impeachment in name only?

They say delayed but these issues are unresolvable, the House isn't going to run the Senate.   So this is it.  It ends here?

Should the Senate modify its rules and just schedule this?  Give the parties notice, under article, Section whatever, the Senate has scheduled an impeachment trial.  ?

But why should they waste time on this?  Move on with the people's business?

I can't believe it but I think this whole ordeal just ended.  It was the Democrats circus.  They own it.  They gave it birth.  They lived it.  They killed it.  They can run on it , or try to run away from it, depending on the district.  We were just kidding?  Trump can deny that impeachment even happened if it has meaning that the House never sent impeachment to the Senate.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-if-impeachment-articles-are-not-delivered-did-impeachment-happen/

Meanwhile, Trump had a rally, Dems had a debate, the House passed Trump's free trade agreement, the market hit new records, and Santa is gathering reindeer and presents up on the rooftop.

God Bless America.   )
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 20, 2019, 09:54:42 AM
I don't think the Senate can or should just leave it like this.

As an analogy
if the prosecution in the House does not send articles to the Senate
then why not the Senate simply vote to dismiss?

My personal opinion, and I know some don't agree with me here
but the Senate should brush this off and we move on.

No reason to risk a trial as Trump says.
Yes he loves this yelling and screaming apparently but most Americans don't.

Just get this put in the past.
No matter what the Repubs do the Dems and their friends will blast them.

Like Levin and Rush , I agree. Just dispatch this and run on the accomplishments.

Trump CANT undo what is done.
The Dems will never let him and he can make it worse.
Title: The Hidden Hand
Post by: G M on December 23, 2019, 01:57:01 AM
http://andmagazine.com/talk/2019/12/11/the-hidden-hand/

The Hidden Hand
by Charles "Sam" Faddis December 11, 2019

The essence of a coup, which some might refer to as covert action, is the hidden hand.  One does not announce that a foreign power is overthrowing the government and installing a new government.  One pulls strings as if from behind a curtain, making events that are all part of a carefully orchestrated plan appear disconnected, spontaneous and serendipitous.

As I read through the recently released IG report for the second time, as someone with a great deal of experience in military and intelligence matters, I see that hand everywhere.

Per the IG report, a single report is delivered to the FBI in the summer of 2016.  It concerns a meeting between a cooperative contact of a foreign intelligence service and a junior level employee of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos.  The report relates what are frankly very amorphous comments by Papadopoulos concerning the Russian government and its alleged possession of information on Hillary Clinton.

On any other day this report would command no attention whatsoever.  The source in question has no track record of any kind with the FBI. Papadopoulos has been employed by the Trump campaign for perhaps 90 days at this point, and there is no reason to believe he has contacts of significance in the Kremlin.

Not on this occasion.  This one report from a foreign intelligence service goes directly to the top of the FBI.  The Director himself, James Comey is briefed.  A full investigation is launched.  Multiple confidential human sources are tasked.  Wiretaps are ordered.  A task force is organized. Crossfire Hurricane is born.

There is a problem, though.  This hand, perhaps because it is controlled by individuals who have made their bones riding desks in Washington, DC and not in the field running actual operations, is clumsy.  The information regarding Papadopoulos provided the needed pretext to start an investigation, but most of the people who will now form the investigative team are not in on the plot.  They will have to be led to the pre-ordained conclusion, so that it appears that they did so without outside interference.

And these investigators have a pesky habit of actually doing their jobs.

Almost immediately these investigators demonstrate that Papadopoulos does not have the access within the Trump campaign necessary for the suspected Russian connections.  If there is a conduit, Papadopoulos cannot be it.

Suddenly, Carter Page is shoved forward as the new focus of the investigation.  His contacts with Russians are long-standing and well-known.  He will serve well as the new target.  Human sources are mobilized.  Wiretaps are ordered.

But, there is another problem.  Those wielding the clumsy hidden hand have forgotten the first rule of real operational personnel.  Never move against a target until you have run “traces.” until you have run the individual’s name through our databases, checked the records and found out what we already know about him.  Maybe the conspirators really don’t know that.  Maybe they just don’t dare do so, because it will mean involving working-level personnel who are not in on the joke.

In any event, they apparently did not run “traces” and as a consequence they clearly do not know that, yes, Mr. Page has extensive Russian contacts and, yes, he has been reporting to “another government agency” for many years on those contacts.  Page is a source.  Our source.

This is problem.  It is a huge, never fully resolved problem for the conspirators.  The “other government agency” sends a formal memo documenting the fact that Page is a source.  The hidden hand tries hiding that.  Any mention of it is removed from applications for FISA warrants, and it is never mentioned in renewal applications either.

But, again, as new FBI personnel, unwitting of the plot are assigned to the investigation they keep doing their jobs.  Already they have determined that the only evidence they can develop is exculpatory.  Already they have established that there is no basis to believe any of the allegations against Donald Trump and his campaign.  Now, they circle back to the issue of Page.

Are they, in effect, focusing investigative resources on a man, Page, who has been cooperating with American intelligence for years?  If so, this is the definition of “crossing lines.”  Inquiries are made.  A second memorandum is sent by the “other government agency.”  This one spells out in excruciating detail Page’s relationship with that agency.

The conspirators, behind their curtain, are now desperate.  What was supposed to be an elegant plot is now in danger of collapsing.  The hand directs crude measures.  An attorney assigned to the investigation materially alters the memorandum inserting words not found in the original and making it appear to say exactly the opposite of what it said, in plain English, originally.  The trail is covered, temporarily, but there is now hard, physical evidence of the conspirators intervention.  The “other government agency” retains the memorandum in its original form, waiting to be discovered by investigators scrutinizing the record at a later date.

This pattern of often clumsy manipulation of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation is everywhere in the record.  It is at the heart, for instance, of the entire Christopher Steele narrative.

Shortly after Crossfire Hurricane is initiated, Steele, a former British intelligence officer, appears to provide a dossier, actually multiple files, concerning alleged connections between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Kremlin.  The dossier also includes a number of gratuitously salacious allegations concerning President Trump and Russian prostitutes, which likely says more about Steele and the way his mind works than anything else.

Steele is working for a law firm employed by Fusion GPS, which is in effect, an extension of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  He is in Washington, DC frequently.  He has a wide range of contacts at senior levels on multiple continents.  He has had contact of some kind with the FBI for years.

Yet, when Steele appears to deliver his information he chooses to pass that information to a junior FBI agent working for an FBI Legal Attache (Legatt) in a European city and then rely on this individual to get the “intelligence” to the right people.  Why?  Because in the minds of those individuals masterminding this operation this will make the information more “organic.”  It will not arrive on the desks of the special agents working Crossfire Hurricane as if hand delivered.  It will not appear to be too neatly packaged and perhaps arouse suspicion.  It will seem to the people working the investigation, most of whom of necessity can never know what is really happening, that this information was developed in the field and therefore is more credible and to be afforded more weight.

But, again, the hand is clumsy.  Steele is a loose cannon.  He talks to the press.  He discusses his contact with the FBI.  This is discovered.  Formal contact with Steele is shut down.  He is no longer an FBI source.

As with the alteration of the memo from the “other government agency” the conspirators must become more forceful and more visible.  If Steele’s “intelligence” cannot continue to be fed into the investigation there is no plot.  There is no way to lead the investigators in the desired direction and ensure the desired result.  The entire operation is in danger of collapsing.

Again, per the IG report, Bruce Ohr, a senior Department of Justice lawyer with no role of any kind in the investigation, but a wife who works for Fusion GPS, suddenly appears and makes himself a conduit between Steele and the FBI.  Beyond that, in fact, he meets directly with the head of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, obtains at least one thumb drive full of Steele’s reports and ferries those to the FBI. The pipeline is reestablished.

No one in the Department of Justice or FBI has asked Ohr to play this role.  It is, in fact, in direct conflict with his status as an attorney.  Ohr actively hides his actions from his superiors.  His behavior is transparent and without justification.  It is almost certain to attract attention.  This is not all the way covert action should work, but the conspirators, backed into a corner by the FBI’s refusal to meet Steele directly have no choice.  It is the files compiled by Steele, which are the key to their efforts to delegitimize and destroy Donald Trump.

The IG report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation runs to hundreds of pages, and it contains a wealth of information.  It is the product of what can only have been a massive amount of investigative work by a team of dedicated professionals and is a huge resource for those attempting to understand the origins of the Russian collusion hoax.  Yet, at the same time it misses the essence of what just transpired.  It is like reading a description of the actions and motivations of a troupe of marionettes in a stage play and missing the fact that they are all simply doing what those pulling the strings make them do.

The FBI did not conduct an investigation of Donald Trump and his associates that ultimately proved to be based on false information and continue that investigation long past the time it should have been shut down simply because some people made some errors in judgment or some procedures need to be changed.  That investigation was simply the most visible piece of a deliberate, covert attempt to overthrow the democratic process.  The perpetrators of that crime have yet to be brought to justice and identified.  Let’s hope that happens soon.

Time for the hidden hand to be revealed.
Title: Atlantic: Historians should stay out of impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2019, 05:06:32 AM


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-should-stay-out-of-impeachment/604012/

Title: historians should stay out of impeachment
Post by: ccp on December 23, 2019, 05:39:31 AM
you mean like this guy who is brought onto CNN for the sole purpose of bashing the bad orange man ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Brinkley

OTOH VDH has real merit.



Title: Dershowitz
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2019, 06:07:07 AM
President Trump Is Impeached. Or Is He?
A party-line House vote leaves no principled argument against a party-line acquittal.
By Alan M. Dershowitz
Dec. 22, 2019 3:08 pm ET


Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill, Dec. 19. PHOTO: STEFANI REYNOLDS/ZUMA PRESS
Suddenly, impeachment can wait. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she’ll delay transmitting the two House-approved articles to the Senate, in an obvious ploy for partisan advantage. For anti-Trump legal scholars Noah Feldman and Laurence Tribe, that has created a Schrödinger’s Cat scenario. They disagree on whether President Trump has been impeached at all.

Mr. Feldman says no: “If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president.” Mr. Tribe says an affirmative vote on an article of impeachment is sufficient to impeach—but he also claims it’s proper to leave it at that. By declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, he argued in an op-ed that Mrs. Pelosi evidently found persuasive, the Democrats would get a win-win. Mr. Trump would carry the stigma of impeachment and be denied the opportunity to erase it via acquittal.

Messrs. Feldman and Tribe are both wrong. Mr. Tribe errs in asserting that the House can deny an impeached official a trial. Mr. Feldman errs in denying that the approval of articles of impeachment is sufficient to constitute an impeachment. The Senate need not wait for the articles to be “transmitted.” The Constitution grants the House the “sole power of impeachment,” and the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.” Now that the House’s job is done, it is up to the Senate to schedule a trial and make the rules for it.

My view—which I suspect much of the public shares—is that Mr. Trump was impeached by a partisan vote and deserves to be acquitted by a partisan vote. The representatives who impeached him along party lines after devising partisan rules of inquiry have no principled argument against a party-line acquittal.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo.”
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2019, 09:46:50 PM
Source unknown:

"The United States Supreme Court – in a 9-0 holding – unequivocally ruled that no trial is required for the Senate to acquit, or convict, anyone impeached by the House of Representatives. Even liberal Justices Stevens and Souter concurred in the ironclad judgment. The case is Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Once you comprehend the momentous importance of this case, you will then understand why Harvard Law School professor (and Democrat impeachment witness), Noah Feldman, recently published an article erroneously claiming that President Trump hasn’t been impeached yet.

Feldman isn’t trying to help the President. He knows the Senate can acquit immediately without waiting for Speaker Pelosi to transfer articles of impeachment, or for House impeachment managers to be appointed. This is because the Supreme Court has ruled – in the Nixon case – that how the Senate goes about acquitting or convicting any impeached person is non-justiciable, in that the Senate’s power is plenary and the Supreme Court may not even review it.

This means that if the Senate acquits Trump immediately – without a trial – the Supreme Court has no authority, whatsoever, to review the Senate’s acquittal, and there isn’t a damn thing the House can do about it.
Feldman is distracting the nation from understanding the full scope of Senate acquittal authority. He knows that if the House hasn’t impeached the President, the Senate could not immediately acquit him. This is why Feldman appears to be defending POTUS.

Appearances are deceptive. Feldman’s true game is to provide cover for Pelosi’s power play in not delivering the articles of impeachment or choosing House impeachment managers, neither of which is necessary for the House to impeach. The Constitution doesn’t mention “articles of impeachment” or “impeachment managers.” And once the House impeaches, the Senate takes over. The House then has no power whatsoever to dictate terms of a trial. No trial is even required...

Noah Feldman’s deceptive legal analysis continued:

“Strictly speaking, ‘impeachment’ occurred – and occurs — when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.”

This is the meat of Feldman’s paper chase fairy-tale, and it’s wrong on both claims. Feldman asserts that in passing H.R. 755, the House only “voted” to impeach, but that the impeachment is not completed until the articles are presented to the Senate. That claim fails upon reading the actual text of H.R. 755, which both impeaches the President and requires that the articles be exhibited to the Senate. If the resolution had only mentioned exhibiting the articles, then Feldman might have a point. But the resolution also clearly states that the President “is impeached.” Full stop.

Second, once impeached, the Senate is certainly not “obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.” Harvard’s esteemed Professor Feldman is certainly aware of the 9-0 Nixon holding. Yet, he fails to mention it at all in his viral article published by Bloomberg. And this is so very telling. He ignores the most important Supreme Court decision in US history regarding impeachment. That’s just lame, bro.

Of course, the House would be well within its sole power to cancel impeachment by voting on a new resolution, but until the House actually takes a subsequent official action, the President remains impeached. So the Senate may acquit immediately.

I find it absolutely frightening that the President’s legal team might be considering Feldman’s position as beneficial to POTUS. It’s even more disturbing that multiple conservative outlets have sadly taken Feldman’s bait. Rather than agreeing with his fairy-tale construction of impeachment authority, the President’s legal team should be pressuring the Senate to rightfully acquit the President immediately, before the House can invent more fake facts from deep state saboteurs that Pierre Dilecto and friends will rely upon in removing the President from office."

===========================================

The referenced case:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-740.ZS.html

=============================================

https://reason.com/2019/12/19/an-impeachment-counterfactual-could-the-senate-hold-a-trial-even-if-the-house-does-not-transmit-the-articles-of-impeachment/
Title: We need another "Constitutional Law Professor's" opinion
Post by: ccp on December 24, 2019, 05:16:44 AM
I would really like to hear the official legal analysis of this from the esteemed Constitutional Law Professor from the University of Chicago:

ex president Barack Obama

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
Title: Re: We need another "Constitutional Law Professor's" opinion
Post by: DougMacG on December 24, 2019, 05:52:39 AM
I would really like to hear the official legal analysis of this from the esteemed Constitutional Law Professor from the University of Chicago:

ex president Barack Obama

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

Among so many other things, I wonder if he taught 'IRS Targeting' as part of his 'Equal Protection under the Law' series.
Title: Is she right?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 25, 2019, 07:53:25 PM


Is she right that 5 Dems on the committee voted for impeachment BEFORE the phone call?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqCzSWpGBRY
Title: Ciarmella
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2019, 12:59:00 PM


https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ukraine-whistleblowers-attorney-calls-for-sen-blackburns-resignation-from-protection-caucus/

An attorney friend comments:

"Strip out the silly rhetoric from Ciarmella’s lawyer, and ask a few questions.  What can Ciarmella actually testify to as a percipient witness?  Not the call itself, he wasn’t on it, and he doesn’t appear to have had access to the transcript before it was released.  He never spoke with the President, and he was removed from the NSC for leaking long before the call took place.  So, unless he’s got classified information about the Ukrainian reaction or something like that, he’s probably got no information the Dems really want added into the mix.  And, if there’s classified information harmful to the President, you can be pretty sure it’s already been leaked.

"Vindman was the percipient witness, and we already know he didn’t have much to say.

"Here’s what Ciarmella could testify to:  who in the White House or elsewhere communicated with you about the call?  On what date did you speak with someone from the House staff?  Schiff’s staff?  What were you advised to do by the people you met?  Who drafted your “whistleblower” complaint?  Was a draft provided to anyone outside of the IC before you filed it?  To whom?  Did they provide feedback?  What feedback?

"He could also be asked a fun series of questions about why he was booted from the NSC staff for leaking about Trump."
Title: JW goes after whistle blower's emails
Post by: ccp on December 27, 2019, 03:59:31 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/27/watchdog-sues-feds-over-impeachment-whistleblower-communications-with-spygate-stars/

Go JW ! 

I still like "whistlesucker" better then "hoax blower" though maybe less accurate
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2019, 04:57:52 PM
Love JW!  One of my biggest charity donations!

Title: Deep Dive by Prof. Turley
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 04, 2020, 11:51:10 AM

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/476745-democratic-impeachment-case-collapses-under-weight-of-time?__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, John Bolton
Post by: DougMacG on January 07, 2020, 05:05:20 AM
Hugh Hewitt knows John Bolton well, says that Senate Democrats calling Bolton to testify is like grabbing a knife at the wrong end, a very sharp knife. 
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2020, 07:53:57 AM
I'm unclear here. 

What happened to the President's executive privilege not to have his personal advisers subject to Congressional subpoena?

With Bolton's stated willingness to appear, as a political matter that would seem to strengthen the Dems hand in wanting witnesses.   What will weenies like Romney, whatsherface from Alaska, and whatsherface from Maine do?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2020, 08:27:20 AM
Second post

Right on cue , , ,

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/romney-becomes-first-republican-to-call-on-bolton-to-testify-in-impeachment-trial-he-has-first-hand-information/
Title: Apparently Willard got some good advice
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 07, 2020, 08:41:57 PM
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477147-romney-comfortable-with-clinton-precedent-to-delay-witness-testimony
Title: Re: Apparently Willard got some good advice
Post by: DougMacG on January 08, 2020, 06:32:48 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477147-romney-comfortable-with-clinton-precedent-to-delay-witness-testimony

We are rid of McCain (rest his soul), Flake and Corker.  Let's hope Republicans stick together on this.  If Trump deserves conviction/removal, they should all vote for that.  If he doesn't, they should all vote to exonerate him.  The evidence needs to be clear and convincing.  No more witch hunts, no stepping on rights and Presidential powers, and no making a mockery of the process.  If this is merely a judgment call, that judgment belongs to the voters.

We have seen nothing impeachable so far.  I am shocked at how clean Trump has come out of all these investigations. Comey wiretapping?  Mueller and his team looking under rock?  Remember the raid on Michael Cohen who kept tapes.  Stormy Daniels and now it is Avanati(sp?) on trial. Show us something worse than what LBJ, JFK, Clinton or BO did.

If Romney votes for removal, it will be his own.  Same for Murkowski and Collins.  Centrist Republicans don't keep their seats without Republican support.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-abused-his-power-and-democrats-didnt-care/
Title: comparison legit?
Post by: ccp on January 08, 2020, 08:41:02 AM
Willard:

https://bloody-disgusting.com/home-video/3531900/willard-crispin-glover-rodents-come-blu-ray/

Romney:

https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+image&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-rseSuPTmAhXKl-AKHbuzCGsQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=f8pNf0JzbjAf9M:

I guess so . vague resemblance .  :|
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 10, 2020, 09:09:47 AM
I kept asking of the House, what is the end game for them?  Exoneration in the Senate?  How does that help them?  Stop short of impeachment?  Too late, but that also would have exonerated him.

The urgency of the House impeachment debate and vote that all happened in one day was that this is a crime in process that must be stopped!

Then the next day, which must have been planned in advance, was the slow walk over to the Senate, withholding impeachment and delaying or preventing the trial, dismissal, acquittal, exoneration. 

In the Senate, Pelosi can't control anything that happens, not even the height of Jerry Nadler's seat.

Senate rules say the process begins when the House delivers its impeachment to the Senate.  A small change in the rules can say the Senate trial begins by reading the House impeachment into their record from the 'Congressional Record'.

Pelosi is feeling the pressure, may hand it over to the Senate today or "soon".  McConnell is telling Republican Senators that the Senate trial begins next week.  They already have agreement on the rules of the trial, same rules that passed 100-0 in the Clinton impeachment trial will pass next week with 51-53 votes.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/09/trump-impeachment-trial-will-start-next-week-mcconnell-tells-republicans/

This was a farce on its face but what Pelosi has done playing games with it has made that much more evident. 

If you are one of the 500,000 liberals out there watching liberal cable news (out of a nation of 330 million) and believed everything they told you about the seriousness and urgency of  this, even you now know this isn't serious and isn't urgent.  It's political, just ask Trump detractor Peggy Noonan.

Can anybody even remember what the crime was?  The talking points changed so quickly from week to week last fall.  Quid pro quo, strike that, bribery, strike that, obstruction of a witch hunt?

Now it all starts up again before they can add more Articles.  The House Democrats will be limited to making the weak case again that they made in December, followed by unlimited time for the accused to answer all the charges.  Then someone calls for a vote and the only real uncertainty is how the red state Democrats like Jones, Alabama, and Manchin, West Virginia will vote.

With Clinton, 100 Senators knew he committed the crime (perjury).  The only issue was each Senator's judgment of whether that rose to the most serious consequence of removing an elected President before the end of his term.

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts is not going to re-write Senate rules; he is going to enforce them.

We already know the prosecution's case; we just have to go through the pain of hearing it again.  The longer they drag it out, the more complex they make it, the more repetitive they get, the more people will tune out - if they hadn't tuned out already.  How does the prosecution take more than one day without witnesses?  Just let them go uninterrupted until they rest.  The next day the defense answers them.  Then Senators submit written questions to both sides which I suppose means an interruption in the trial.  Then they reconvene, presumably read that information into the record and take perhaps a series of votes, none of which Democrats can win.

Even the accusers admit Trump did not commit a crime or anything else listed in the constitution as grounds for impeachment.  Everyone now knows there is no urgency to remove this President, quoting or paraphrasing Pelosi's answer of when, 'whenever I feel like it'.  Everyone knows he won't be removed from office.  And everyone knows that the voters that put him there will decide this all again shortly. 

It's all political, so set up the stage and the seat boosters and let's get on with this.
---------------------------------
Update:  Pelosi will send articles over to  the Senate next week.  Next week?  Why not today? 

Friday is known as a slow news day, not strategic politically for big announcements.  But she already made the announcement.  They need media fanfare, some lipstick on their pig.  Maybe what they need is more cowbell.

Meanwhile Iran shot hundreds of civilians out of the sky.  Is this a bigger story than that?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 10, 2020, 01:15:58 PM
Worried about Rudy's cronies creating serious problems , , ,
Title: do not have votes to dismiss
Post by: ccp on January 14, 2020, 09:42:07 AM
https://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-reject-plans-dismiss-014922251.html

Mitt vying to be VP ( for Joe plugs Biden) will not vote to dismiss - among others including the usual Collins Murkowski
probably Mike Lee and few others.

so this goes on for even longer...........ughhh

I agree with Rush this is a mistake.

Unless they simply remove Trump the Dems will criticize this no matter what so might as well get rid of this ASAP

But of course some Republicans cannot simply say no.........
Title: Re: do not have votes to dismiss
Post by: DougMacG on January 14, 2020, 10:13:54 AM
https://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-reject-plans-dismiss-014922251.html

Mitt vying to be VP ( for Joe plugs Biden) will not vote to dismiss - among others including the usual Collins Murkowski
probably Mike Lee and few others.

so this goes on for even longer...........ughhh

I agree with Rush this is a mistake.

Unless they simply remove Trump the Dems will criticize this no matter what so might as well get rid of this ASAP

But of course some Republicans cannot simply say no.........

They are in uncharted waters.  The Senate Republicans need the public to perceive that they took this constitutional responsibility seriously.  Yes, we already saw the House has nothing, but the House gets to present its entire case to the Senate, hopefully interrupted by objections such as facts not in evidence, hearsay, etc.  Then same for the defense, they get to answer everything accused and introduce their own theory.  There was every rightful reason for the President to want to look into the corruption and use financial leverage to do so.

At that point there will be motions to take votes.  Democrats would like to use the trial for further inquiry.  I have to guess that will be rejected since they passed their impeachment without further inquiry.  But if there is, the Biden family corruption becomes fair game with no time limit on the defense to explore it.  My guess is that Rudy G is ready to go on this, a world class prosecutor in his own right, much more so than the House 'managers'.

Two Democrats lean to the R side with Trump and a number of Republicans are not solidly pro-Trump and have their own divided constituencies to attend to.

I predict an acquittal vote after fully hearing from both sides but don't rule out a scenario where both Trump and Biden end up testifying.

Who will be the first of the Dem candidates to blame Biden for this mess (along with Trump) ?  Biden just took the lead in the first 4 states.  Either attack him or drop out.  Covering for him further is surrender.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 14, 2020, 10:41:57 AM
We sure live in interesting times , , ,

Title: Hunter Biden can't be questioned because he is my only surviving son
Post by: DougMacG on January 15, 2020, 05:05:11 AM
I'm not a lawyer but I haven't seen this protection in the constitution.

Biden: Trump Has "Savaged My Surviving Son," My Family "Irrelevant" To His Impeachable Offenses
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/14/biden_my_family_irrelevant_trump_has_committed_impeachable_offenses.html

The corruption of Americans in Ukraine can't be explored in the investigation of the f President Trump asking Ukraine for help investigating the corruption of Americans in Ukraine - because Joe Biden lost his other son and this is the only one he has left.  Further exposing of Biden family corruption would be unfair to Biden.

Makes perfect sense.  ??
----------------------------------------

A "procedural" vote in the  House today to send the articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  Has anyone ever heard of that?  Last chance to chicken out.  I have been asking from the start, what is the end game for the Democrats, where is the off-ramp?  Here's one.  Vote this down.  End this now.  Otherwise, as Wolf Blitzer asked in a debate question: "...is it going to be harder to run against President Trump if he's been acquitted and able to claim vindication...?"

Umm, yes and your lame answer doesn't  mitigate that.  It's also going to be harder to impeach him again in the next 5 years if they run into some future real or further imagined evidence to do so if they move forward with this hoax.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 15, 2020, 05:09:18 AM
"The Senate Republicans need the public to perceive that they took this constitutional responsibility seriously."

By having a trial the Republicans give credence to what the House Dems have done to this point.

It gives legitimacy to the Democrats claim

"that this is not partisan"
"that this is about the defending the Constitution"
"defending "democracy"

Mark Levin had a good talk the very early part of show on this last PM
  I only the first 15 minutes
 
Of note  Trump was for a trial since he likes shows with him at the center of attention but I read recently something I
that sounded like he changed his mind and wanted this dismissed.

In any case,  it is all moot now.
The show will go on and the MSM will give . as little attention to the Rep. and the most attention and emphasis to the Dems.

My guess after the show everyone will still have their same opinions.

OTOH lets hope that the Republicans don't blunder and make everything worse.

Oh and I forget , Lamar Alexander.  Funny , I have not heard much from him since he ran and lost for Presidency.  I keep thinking he retired or died.

Title: Pelosi pens
Post by: ccp on January 16, 2020, 07:17:15 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-impeachment-pens-trump-solemn-somber

can frame and put in living room as conversation piece during home parties with all their lib or never Trumper friends

can use to masterbate with

good for psychiatrists to hang up next to their diploma treating TDS.

Title: Impeachment, Here we go...
Post by: DougMacG on January 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
From what I've read and heard:  The 'trial' starts Tuesday at 1pm Eastern.  'Prosecution' gets 24 hours to present their case.  Defense gets 24 hours.  8 hour days take that to 9pm not counting breaks and interruptions.  Does that mean midnight?  48 hours is 6 full days.  They will work Saturdays and take Sunday off, unable to travel weekends.  If they use all of that time, it takes us through the second week. 

Senators have to just sit there.  They are not allowed electronic devices or reading material that is not part of the case.  (Who enforces that?)  That is torture for anyone, plus it is Schiff and Nadler going on and on about activities of which they are already fully aware.  Senators can submit written questions, that's it.  Those will be read by the Chief Justice Roberts AFTER the first 48 hours, making the proceedings even longer.  Then maybe motions and votes, but that could be when the real trial begins with witnesses and cross examinations.  Could take until summer if no one says STOP!

Does the Senate interrupt for other business?  Does the clock stop for bathroom, lunch and dinner breaks?  National security briefings?  Does the Supreme Court shut down its cases absent one member?  Does the Chief Justice stop to consult with other Supreme Court members (at his discretion) when serious constitutional questions arise, after all, this is a nation-changing, constitutional crisis between the other two branches of government.  Does the House of Representatives conduct any serious business knowing the other chamber is tied up - because of them?  Were they doing anything anyway in divided government?

Meanwhile, the campaign: do the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire town halls go on without 4 candidates participating?  will they re-schedule to date uncertain?  Does Biden at the center of this corruption scandal actually benefit from it?  Does he go ahead with more of his big rallies of 7 or 8 people while the others can go to diners in Iowa at 10pm central via skype?  Who will show up for that? (It's 10 below this morning in Iowa.)  I have been asking, who will be the first contender to rip Biden for his role in this?  From a Dem point of view, his behavior was very Trump-like in this.

Meanwhile, Trump!  His electronic devices will be alive and active while the Senators are silent.  Will he govern responsibly during this time, or step in it and make things worse?  Will the economy keep roaring with two, going on three, new trade agreements coming through, more deregulation and more openings on healthcare.  How about some 'tax reform' on day one of the trial?  Wag THAT dog while the rest have their tails (tales) between their legs.  Ask Larry Kudlow (or Doug) what he alone could do to jump start the economy further this election year, without action from Congress.  The administration is not out of governing and deregulation ideas.

The 'jury' will begin with their own biases and mostly predetermined outcomes, subject to new information.  Republicans 'mavericks' include Susan Collins - Maine, Lisa Murkowski - Alaska, Mitt Romney - Utah.  Who else?  Will VP Pence be needed to step in on critical rules votes?  Red state Democrats are on the hot seat.  Most obvious, Joe Manchin - West Virginia and Doug Jones - Alabama.  What about the others from states that Trump won and from states that Trump might win.  Jon Tester - Montana is not up for reelection, but not immune to political forces.  Michigan has two Dem Senators, one up for reelection. Trump won Michigan. Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania were won by Trump and have one Dem Senator each. Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota all have two Dem Senators and Colorado has one - in states that could be in play.   How much Derangement do they want to be part of?  The less the better.  What is the 'middle ground' in impeachment, conviction, removal of an elected leader who turned out to not be an agent of Russia?

Famous people NOT reading the forum:  Pelosi had a chance stop this yesterday and end this with impeachment in the House, not with acquittal in the Senate. 
Title: Parnas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 16, 2020, 03:11:53 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/16/10-things-to-know-about-the-democrats-obsession-with-lev-parnas/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20200116&utm_content=B


https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/16/lev-parnas-cnn-nyt/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=11648



Title: Starr and Dershowitz officially on the Trump team
Post by: ccp on January 17, 2020, 09:00:55 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/17/alan-dershowitz-joins-trumps-impeachment-legal-team/

Alan is now pictured on most  dart boards in Massachusetts and every one in Martha's Vineyard.

don't expect any Hollywood calls for cameos and expect more movies like Carlito's Way :

https://www.google.com/search?q=david+kleinfeld+.+dershowitz+images&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin6YD7jYvnAhUCT98KHb7IAY0QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=hk3cdsGHN7CtDM:
Title: Bongino : obama officials violated law 7 times
Post by: ccp on January 17, 2020, 05:45:34 PM
as per GAO:

https://bongino.com/flashback-seven-times-the-gao-said-the-obama-administration-broke-federal-law/

Good pick up Dan! :))
Title: What did GAO know and when did they know it?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2020, 03:45:51 PM
What Did GAO Staff Know and When Did They Know It?
Judging the organization by its own standards.

By James Freeman
Jan. 17, 2020 4:39 pm ET

Yesterday this column asked why Americans should take the opinion of the Government Accountability Office seriously when it claims a Trump violation of law. Reviewing the same set of facts, House Democrats allege no such violation in their impeachment articles. The details of the GAO’s argument raise more questions—including whether the GAO itself has faithfully followed the law.

Some questions involve the source of this exquisitely timed contribution to the impeachment debate, which was published on the first day of President Trump’s Senate trial. Writing about GAO, Emily Cochrane, Eric Lipton and Chris Cameron assert in the New York Times:

The accountability office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.

Given how that sentence ends, it’s not clear why the Times decided to call GAO “independent.”

There’s also a reasonable question about the use of the term “nonpartisan”. A Journal reader raised this issue in a comment posted under Thursday’s column. “The so-called ‘nonpartisan’ GAO’s bureaucrats are represented by the AFL-CIO’s International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers whose PAC in 2016 gave 100% of its donations to Democrats and 0% to Republicans. This creature of Congress is a perfect example of the swamp,” writes Gary Jarmin.

Mr. Jarmin’s report on political donations is correct, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which posts Federal Election Commission data on its OpenSecrets website.

As for Thursday’s news-making memo, GAO acknowledges in a footnote that its opinion was rendered at the request of Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who repeatedly prodded GAO staff to say whether they agreed with his claim of a Trump legal violation.

But in the body of its opinion, GAO doesn’t say it’s acting to serve one of its legislative bosses but instead claims: “Pursuant to our role under the [Impoundment Control Act], we are issuing this decision.”

The relevant portion of the law is section 686, and this creates a potential problem for the agency as it claims to be doing more than simply Sen. Van Hollen’s bidding.

A former Member of Congress argues via email:

The opinion is not what section 686 requires. This brief statutory section mandates that GAO report on a deferral of budget authority that the president has failed to notify Congress about. The purpose of this mandate on GAO is to let Congress know in a timely way, so that Congress can do something about the withholding of funds (i.e., make sure that they are spent as required by law).

In order for this statutory provision to do any good, GAO needs to let Congress know within weeks, not months or years. Appropriations are annual. The fiscal year ends September 30. The Impoundment Control Act gives Congress 45 days after notification to veto a deferral.

Under section 686 GAO “shall” make a report on the deferral to both Houses of Congress. The GAO report then operates as if it were the required notification from the President. That gives Congress 45 days to act (or, if the notice comes with less than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year, until September 30).

Here, by not acting until the fourth month of the following fiscal year, GAO failed to do what section 686 requires.

Is there an impeachment process for GAO officials?
Title: WSJ: Trump, Obama, and the Spending Power
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2020, 03:48:05 PM
second post

Trump, Obama and the Spending Power
The White House didn’t commit a crime in delaying aid to Ukraine.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 17, 2020 6:55 pm ET

Opinion: The GAO's Legal Conclusion is Wrong

On Jan. 16, 2020, the Government Accountability Office released a report claiming that President Trump broke the law by delaying military aid to Ukraine last summer. Image: AP/Bloomberg Composite: Brad Howard
Does anyone remember Democrats or Republicans calling for President Obama’s impeachment after a federal court reproached his Administration for lawlessly spending money? We didn’t think so, but now Democrats are flogging a new report by the Government Accountability Office claiming that President Trump broke the law by briefly delaying military aid to Ukraine last summer. The agency’s legal conclusion is wrong, but the double standard is worse.

“This important ruling further strengthens the House’s case for impeachment and removal, and reinforces the need for a fair trial in the Senate that includes documents and witnesses,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared following Thursday’s release of the report. The impeachment press is citing the report as if it were a revelation from the Oracle of Delphi.


The GAO is a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, and its legal opinions aren’t binding on the executive branch. While the agency usually tries to avoid appearing partisan, its analysis that the Trump Administration violated the law reads like a brief from the Center for American Progress.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong declares, adding that the Administration’s “reluctance to provide a fulsome response” to the GAO has “constitutional significance.”

To rewind the tape, the Office of Management and Budget last summer put a hold on $250 million in Pentagon funds that Congress had appropriated in 2018 for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Congress made the money available through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, but OMB enjoys discretion over when to let funds flow.

OMB in July and August put a hold on the money putatively “to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.” As we know, the President wanted to withhold the aid as leverage on Ukraine. But his advisers and GOP Senators such as Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson and Ohio’s Rob Portman objected, the flap became a national news story, and OMB released the funds on September 12.

GAO now marches onto the political battlefield to shoot the wounded. It claims the White House violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the President from unilaterally deferring or rescinding money that has been appropriated by Congress. But no spending was deferred. The money was spent in the fiscal year of the Congressional appropriation, and OMB says the Pentagon didn’t intend to obligate most of it until September anyway.

There was thus no derogation of Congress’s power of the purse. By contrast, consider the Obama Administration’s decision to pay subsidies to health insurers in 2014 that weren’t appropriated by Congress. The GOP House sued to vindicate its spending power, and a federal judge ruled against the Obama Administration. But the money couldn’t be clawed back.

In a separate case, GAO concluded the Obama Health and Human Services Department in 2016 illegally paid money to insurers that the Affordable Care Act required to be sent to Treasury. The issue was politically charged at the time, but the GAO opinion made no mention of the Constitution: “We conclude that HHS lacks authority to ignore the statute’s directive.” The Obama Administration said it disagreed, and the press yawned.

GAO has enjoyed respect from both sides of the aisle, but it will undermine its credibility if it joins the anti-Trump resistance.
Title: Dershowitz is very consistent
Post by: ccp on January 20, 2020, 04:55:14 AM
CNN "unearths video " supposedly of Dershowitz contradicting  himself

Yes he noted a crime might not be needed for impeachment but EVERYTHING else he says is 100% consistent with what he is saying now

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alan-dershowitz-impeachment-abuse-of-power-102153297.html
Nice try Reed Richardson
Title: Andy McCarthy, The Hole in Impeachment Case: No Impeachable Offense
Post by: DougMacG on January 21, 2020, 08:53:37 AM
It's House Democrats Days in Washington, today and tomorrow at least.  They have the stage and the coverage if they can keep it.  Apparently they dreaded this day because they can't overcome this one reality: Nothing happened that was impeachable.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-charges-lack-indictable-offense/

The Hole in the Impeachment Case
By Andrew C. McCarthy
 
January 18, 2020 6:30 AM
 
Something is missing from the charges against Trump: An impeachable offense.

Thought experiment No. 1: Suppose Bob Mueller’s probe actually proves that Donald Trump is under Vladimir Putin’s thumb. Fill in the rest of the blanks with your favorite corruption fantasy: The Kremlin has video of the mogul-turned-president debauching himself in a Moscow hotel; the Kremlin has a bulging file of real-estate transfers through which Trump laundered racketeering proceeds for Putin’s favored mobsters and oligarchs; or Trump is recorded cutting a deal to drop Obama-era sanctions against Putin’s regime if Russian spies hack Democratic accounts.

Thought experiment No. 2: Adam Schiff is not a demagogue. (Remember, this is fantasy.) At the very first televised hearing, when he alleged that President Trump told Ukrainian president Zelensky, “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent . . . lots of it,” Schiff was not defrauding the public. Instead, impeachment’s Inspector Clouseau can actually prove that Trump was asking a foreign government to manufacture out of whole cloth evidence that Vice President Biden and his son were cashing in on the former’s political influence (as opposed to asking that Ukraine look into an arrangement so objectively sleazy that the Obama administration itself agitated over what to do about it).

What do these two scenarios have in common, besides being fictional? Answer: If either of them were real, we’d already be talking about President Pence’s upcoming State of the Union address.

This is the point that gets lost in all the endless chatter over impeachment strategy and procedure. Everything that is happening owes to the fact that we do not have an offense sufficiently grave for invocation of the Constitution’s nuclear option. If we had one, the machinations and the posturing would be unnecessary — even ridiculous.

Why are we talking about how Chairman Schiff, Speaker Pelosi, and House Democrats rushed through the impeachment inquiry without making a real effort to interview key witnesses?

Why was the Democrats’ impeachment gambit driven by the election calendar rather than the nature of the president’s offense? Why were the timing of hearings and the unreasonable limits imposed on Republicans’ ability to call witnesses dictated by the frantic rush to get done before Christmas recess — to the point that Democrats cynically vacated a subpoena they’d served on a relevant administration witness, fearing a few weeks of court battles that they might lose?

Why did Democrats grope from week to week in a struggle over what to call the misconduct they accused the president of committing – campaign finance, extortion, quid pro quo, bribery? How did they end up with an amorphous “abuse of power” case? How did they conclude that an administration that goes to court rather than instantly surrendering potentially privileged information commits obstruction?

Why such tedious recriminations over adoption of Senate procedures that were approved by a 100–0 vote the last time there was an impeachment trial? Why all the kvetching over whether witnesses will be called when those procedures provide for the calling of witnesses in the likely event that 51 senators — after hearing nearly two weeks of presentation and argument from both sides — want to hear from one or two of them?

Why, with Election Day only ten months away, would Speaker Pelosi stoke an impeachment vote that could be perilous for many of her members, on the insistence that Trump was such a clear and present danger she could brook no delay, but then . . . sit on the impeachment articles for a month, accomplishing nothing in the interim except to undermine the presidential bids of several Senate Democrats, who will be trapped in Washington when they should be out campaigning with Iowa’s caucuses just two weeks away?

None of this would have happened if there had been a truly impeachable offense.

Adam Schiff is a smart guy. He did not idly dream up a “make up dirt” parody. He framed it because he knows that’s the kind of misconduct you would need to prove to warrant impeachment and removal of a president. In fact, Schiff could never prove that, but he figured parody is good enough for 2020 campaign purposes — and that’s what this exercise is all about.

If collusion with Russia had been fact rather than farce, Trump would never have made it to an impeachment trial. He’d have had to resign. Prior to November 8, 2016, Republicans were not the ones in need of convincing that Russia was a dangerous geopolitical threat. If it had been real collusion that brought Democrats around to that conclusion, the votes to impeach and remove would have been overwhelming.

And the timing would have been irrelevant. If Americans had been seized by a truly impeachable offense, it would not matter whether Election Day was two years, two months, or two weeks away. The public and the political class would not tolerate an agent of the Kremlin in the Oval Office.

If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: “Sure, you can have your lawyers here, and call whatever witnesses you want.” There would be a bipartisan sense that the president had done profound wrong. There would be a sense of history, not contest. Congressional leaders would want to be remembered as statesmen, not apparatchiks.

If there were a real impeachable offense, there would be no fretting about witnesses at the trial. Senate leaders would be contemplating that, after hearing the case extensively presented by both sides, there might well be enough votes to convict without witnesses. But if there were an appetite for witnesses, witnesses would be called . . . as they were in Watergate. And just as in Watergate, if the president withheld vital evidence of appalling lawlessness, the public would not be broadly indifferent to administration stonewalling.

If there were an obviously impeachable offense, the garrisons of Fort Knox could not have stopped Nancy Pelosi from personally marching impeachment articles into the Senate the second the House had adopted them — in what would have been an overwhelming bipartisan vote (of the kind that Pelosi, not long ago, said would be imperative for a legitimate impeachment effort).

The Framers expected presidents to abuse their powers from time to time. And not just presidents. Our Constitution’s theory of the human condition, and thus of governance, is that power is apt to corrupt anyone. It needs to be divided, and the peer components need to be incentivized to check each other. The operating assumption is that, otherwise, one component would accumulate too much power and inevitably fall prey to the tyrannical temptation. But as Madison observed, men are not angels. Separation of powers arms us against inevitable abuse, it does not prevent abuse from happening. Abuse is a given: Congress uses lawmaking power to encroach on the other branches’ prerogatives; judges legislate from the bench, presidents leverage their awesome powers for political advantage. The expectation is not that government officials will never overreach; it is that when one branch does overreach, the others will bring it into line.

That is the norm: corrective action or inaction, political pressure, naming and shaming, power of the purse, and so on. We expect to criticize, inveigh, even censure. We don’t leap from abuse to expulsion. We don’t expect routinely to expel members of Congress or impeach presidents and judges. That is reserved for historically extraordinary wrongs.

On Ukraine, nothing of consequence came of President Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop excesses. Sure, they ought to be a 2020 campaign issue. Democrats, instead, would have us exaggerate them into historically extraordinary wrongs. For that, you need gamesmanship. If there were real impeachable misconduct, there would be no time or place for games.
Title: Schiff got caught lying again
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 21, 2020, 10:06:58 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/adam-schiff-apparently-mischaracterized-further-evidence-in-impeachment-report?utm_content=buffer0347e&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-theblaze
Title: Re: Schiff got caught lying again
Post by: G M on January 21, 2020, 11:10:18 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/adam-schiff-apparently-mischaracterized-further-evidence-in-impeachment-report?utm_content=buffer0347e&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=fb-theblaze

It takes a lot of lying to stand out among politicians. He has accomplished this seemingly impossible task.
Title: Coup: Impeachment, then and now, "Good God, vote and be done with it"
Post by: DougMacG on January 22, 2020, 05:06:13 AM
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/impeachment-then-now.php
Title: Coup, Impeachment: "baseless", "discredited", "debunked" "conspiracy"
Post by: DougMacG on January 22, 2020, 05:34:32 AM
More than a hundred usages of these inflammatory terms in the House report.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/21/analysis_dems_repetitive_impeach_lingo_suggests_no_slam_debunk_122083.html

the report accuses the president of pushing a “discredited conspiracy theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 United States Presidential election.”

the report says that Giuliani was hoping to chase down not just claims about the Bidens but “discredited claims about the Bidens.”
--------------------------------------------------
Someone once said its not true therefore its forever "debunked", no matter where the facts may fall?  Doesn't that make both Nadler and Schiff debunked?  Can't we just argue on the merits?

Title: debunked my derriere
Post by: ccp on January 22, 2020, 06:24:54 AM
Yes I hate the most popular leftist media use of the word "debunked"

the only thing "debunked" is CNNs credibility

Title: Larry of the Democrat Party Tribe
Post by: ccp on January 22, 2020, 07:28:47 AM
I would like to add Leftist Larry from the Democrat Party Tribe

his credibility is debunked

he is out and out typical Jewish lib who is in love with his Democrat Party


Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 23, 2020, 07:35:09 AM
Trump Acts Like a Politician. That’s Not an Impeachable Offense.
Receiving a “political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action (like requesting an investigation) into an abuse of power.

By Josh Blackman
Mr. Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston.

Jan. 23, 2020

861


Credit...T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
The way things look, President Trump will almost certainly not be removed from office. The precedents set by the articles of impeachment, however, will endure far longer. And regrettably, the House of Representatives has transformed presidential impeachment from a constitutional parachute — an emergency measure to save the Republic in free-fall — into a parliamentary vote of “no confidence.”

The House seeks to expel Mr. Trump because he acted “for his personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers responded, “elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.” The president’s lawyers are right. And that behavior does not amount to an abuse of power.

Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future. Otherwise legal conduct, even when plainly politically motivated — but without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain — does not amount to an impeachable “abuse of power.” The House’s shortsighted standard will fail to knock out Mr. Trump but, if taken seriously, threatens to put virtually every elected official in peril. The voters, and not Congress, should decide whether to reward or punish this self-serving feature of our political order.

The first article of impeachment turns on President Trump’s request that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announce an investigation of Hunter Biden’s role with the energy company Burisma. Mr. Trump wanted to learn about potential financial corruption concerning Hunter, realizing that such an investigation would, perhaps, yield greater scrutiny of Joe Biden. The House argues that this request to potentially harm Mr. Trump’s political rival was an “abuse of power.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump’s lawyers respond that the call was “perfectly normal.” Yes, that phrase actually appears in the brief. Regrettably, parts of the brief are written in a far-too-political tone. But the president’s lawyers have raised an important threshold issue.

“In a representative democracy,” they write, “elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.”

President Trump did not stand to receive any money or property from the Ukrainian president. (The House wisely chose not to charge Mr. Trump with bribery.) As a policy matter, I disagree with Mr. Trump’s decision to ask for an investigation of the Bidens. Even if warranted, it should have been avoided at all reasonable costs. The Republic would have been fine if we never learned more about Burisma. But receiving a “personal political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action — requesting an investigation — into impeachable conduct.

Mr. Trump is not the first president to consider his political future while executing the office. In 1864, during the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln encouraged Gen. William Sherman to allow soldiers in the field to return to Indiana to vote. What was Lincoln’s primary motivation? He wanted to make sure that the government of Indiana remained in the hands of Republican loyalists who would continue the war until victory. Lincoln’s request risked undercutting the military effort by depleting the ranks. Moreover, during this time, soldiers from the remaining states faced greater risks than did the returning Hoosiers.

Lincoln had dueling motives. Privately, he sought to secure a victory for his party. But the president, as a party leader and commander in chief, made a decision with life-or-death consequences. Lincoln’s personal interests should not impugn his public motive: win the war and secure the nation.

Editors’ Picks

A Grieving Young Tennis Star Finds Solace on the Court

10 Years Later, an Oscar Experiment That Actually Worked

Olivia Palermo Got a Lot Out of That Internship
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Consider a more recent example. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson sought to put Thurgood Marshall, the prominent civil rights advocate, on the Supreme Court. But there were no vacancies. Not a problem for Johnson, who nominated as attorney general Ramsey Clark, the son of Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark. Johnson knew that this move would, as Wil Haygood wrote in “Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination That Changed America,” raise questions “about a perceived conflict of interest because [Ramsey] Clark’s father sat on the high court.” Indeed, Johnson hoped that Justice Clark would retire to avoid having to recuse from cases in which Attorney General Clark was a party.

The stratagem worked. Justice Clark soon retired, and Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to fill the vacancy. Here, Johnson engineered a move that would have created conflicts that would keep a sitting Supreme Court justice from deciding countless appeals, where the primary purpose was to create a vacancy on the court. (Imagine if President Trump selected Chief Justice Roberts’s wife as attorney general!) Ultimately, Johnson did not run for re-election in 1968, but appointing the first African-American justice could have improved his popularity, and perhaps his party’s electoral standing.

Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare, while, in the back of their minds, considering how those actions will affect their popularity. Often, the two concepts overlap: What’s good for the country is good for the official’s re-election. All politicians understand this dynamic, even — or perhaps especially — Mr. Trump. And there is nothing corrupt about acting based on such competing and overlapping concerns. Politicians can, and do, check the polls before casting a difficult vote. Yet the impeachment trial threatens to transform this well-understood aspect of politics into an impeachable offense.

What separates an unconstitutional “abuse of power” from the valorized actions of Lincoln and Johnson? Not the president’s motives. In each case, a president acted with an eye toward “personal political benefit.” Rather, Congress’s judgment about what is a “legitimate policy purpose” separates the acclaimed from the criticized. Preserving a unified nation during the Civil War? Check. Creating a vacancy so the first African-American can be appointed to the Supreme Court? Check. But asking a foreign leader to investigate potential corruption? Impeach.

An impeachable offense need not be criminal. But our Constitution does not allow Congress to take a vote of “no confidence” for a president who pursues legal policies that members of the opposition party deem insufficiently publicly spirited. Presidents who take such actions with an eye toward the ballot box should be judged by the voters at the ballot box.

MORE ON IMPEACHMENT
Title: Impeachment: Throwing mud at the wall, see what sticks
Post by: DougMacG on January 23, 2020, 08:56:58 AM
Bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, when do they get to these?

I have a pet peeve about liberal attempted logic that I call "and another thing".  They make false, inconclusive or insignificant first, second, third points and then think it is icing on the cake to add more and more points to a point already proven before anyone can stop them to point out they still have not made a valid first point.  So it goes with the 24 hour presentation of why Trump should be removed from office.  Yawn.

They need ONE valid point from the House impeachment to remove him from office.  Why does this take 24 hours?

Here is the bribe. Not alleged, didn't happen.  Here is the Treason. Not alleged, didn't happen.  Here are the high crimes. Not even alleged, didn't happen.  So on they droll about whatever it is they are talking about when you tune in, in this case the size of the Old Testament. 

Last time I checked in there was a smear campaign against the never-Trumper, now fired Ambassador.  Why?  Trump doesn't need a reason to fire her or to re-assign her.    Somebody was out there saying something bad about someone in politics, OMG, right while they are doing it themselves.  We don't know who was saying it, what they said or whether or not it was true, but EVERYONE knows it isn't impeachable.  Getting her out of the way for whatever reason was easy and they did it.   Clinton fired 100 US Attorneys and no Democrat objected.  This ambassador hated Trump and had her own agenda.  Out she went.  Bitter?  Yes, so what?

When they ramble on and on about something insignificant with 100 Senators chained to their desk, isn't everyone correctly thinking they don't have a main point or they would be talking about that?

7 million people reportedly watched (some of it) in prime time - in a nation of 330 million where more than 130 million voted.  Close to zero watched in non-prime time.  The biggest audience of was on Fox, likely conservative, leaving the liberal audience not much larger than their usual evening of hate broadcasting.  The undecideds were not watching.  How could they, it's horrible.  115 million watched the Super Bowl, a 16-fold more significant event in their eyes.   

Frankly, days 1 and 2 of the impeachment trial could be called slow news days.  Nothing new came out.

When does Alexander Butterfield take the stand and tell us about the tapes? I know where I was July 13, 1973 watching live hearings when he revealed  we could just check the tapes. Tapes?  Gasp!

In this case the accusations aren't impeachable so proving them is meaningless.  Trump didn't hide what he did, perhaps with political motives, because his political interests were aligned with the official interests of the United States.  Root out corruption. If you don't like the way he does it, vote for someone else.  If 'the tapes' ever come out, it doesn't matter because Trump already - immediately  -released the transcript of the call that triggered this and it shows no wrong doing - unless you are a hateful leftist reading something into it that isn't there.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 24, 2020, 05:15:22 AM
Unlike the House Managers, I believe the Defense is ready to present its case. 

This prosecution of Trump is a hodgepodge of tidbits compiled by haters who keep concluding the only reason he could have done any of this was to further  his own reelection.  Whether it was choosing his ambassador, setting his policies or deciding with whom to meet, it is all personal with no legitimate public purpose underlying his decisions.  It is not true and very easy to present another side to it. 

Getting reelected is part of his job, a necessary part of 'making America great again' as he sees it.  What he is not allowed to do is take official actions in his personal interest that are AGAINST the national interest.  If "inter-agency consensus" is opposed to Trump's decisions or methods, or if a liberal media outlet says that theory is "debunked", that does not make Trump's action wrong, a crime or an impeachable offense. 

The Biden arrangement and Barisma does not pass the smell test.  Looking into it is his job.  "Make up dirt", "on my opponent", "to aid in my reelection", these are quotes of Adam Schiff, not Donald Trump.  It was all made up; we have the transcript.  In the sentence that asks for favor, the favor is for "us" and he goes on to clarify the us is "our country".  If you don't like that, vote for someone else.  Don't remove the President you don't like from office and ban him from appearing on all future ballots in a free country.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2020, 06:04:18 AM
The ‘Corrupt Purposes’ Impeachment
Why the House logic is a danger to all future Presidents.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 22, 2020 6:50 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
1,414
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT

Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
On Jan. 22, 2020, Republican Senators responded to the impeachment case presented by House Democrats, and the possible repercussions it could have on the presidency. Image: Caroline Brehman/Zuma Press
As House managers make their impeachment case, many Americans will dismiss it all as a partisan effort that hasn’t persuaded the country and will die in the Senate. They have a point. But the precedents that Democrats are setting could live on, so forgive us if we explain how dangerous the House’s impeachment logic is to future Presidents and the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Especially pernicious is the new House “corrupt purposes” standard for removing a President from office. The House managers don’t assert that any specific action by President Trump was an abuse of power or a violation of law. They don’t deny he can delay aid to a foreign country or ask a foreign leader to investigate corruption. Presidents do that all the time. Instead they assert in their first impeachment article that Mr. Trump is guilty of “abuse of power” because he committed those acts for “corrupt purposes.”

Day One of the Impeachment Trial, and Joe Biden in Iowa


SUBSCRIBE
As an aside here, we should repeat that a President doesn’t have to break a specific law to commit an impeachable offense. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are wrong on this point. Presidents were accused of breaking specific laws in America’s three previous impeachments. But under the Constitution a President can commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” if he commits non-criminal acts that exceed his executive authority or if he refuses to execute the law.

But this means committing specific acts that are impeachable in and of themselves. Examples might be deploying U.S. troops against political opponents, or suspending habeas corpus without Congressional assent. (Lincoln received a Congressional pass in wartime.)

House Democrats are going much further and declaring that Mr. Trump’s acts are impeachable because he did them for “personal political benefit.” He isn’t accused of corruption per se. His Ukraine interventions are said to be corrupt because he intended them to help him win re-election this year. In other words, his actions were impeachable only because his motives were self-serving.

Think about this in the context of history and as a precedent. Every President has made foreign-policy decisions that he thinks may help his re-election. That’s what President Obama did in 2012 when he asked Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin to ease up on missile defense until after the election. Mitt Romney was criticizing Mr. Obama for being soft on Mr. Putin, and Mr. Obama wanted a political favor from the dictator to help him win re-election.

Was Mr. Obama’s motive also corrupt and thus impeachable? We can guess what Mr. Romney thought at the time, but he didn’t say Mr. Obama should be impeached. He tried to defeat him at the ballot box.

As 21 Republican state attorneys general explained in an important letter to the Senate on Wednesday, “It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner that may also be politically advantageous. Such a standard would be cause for the impeachment of virtually every President, past, present, and future.”

The AGs add that the “House’s corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which is predisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.”

Some sages dismiss this argument as slippery-slope alarmism that won’t come to pass. Their belief is that Mr. Trump is uniquely a threat to constitutional order and a future Congress wouldn’t apply the same logic to a more conventional President. Others want to make impeachment more routine as a check on presidential power.

This is wishful thinking. Once unleashed, the corrupt motives theory will become a temptation whenever a President is disliked and down in the polls. The mere threat of common impeachment will make Presidents much more beholden to Congress.

With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory. This might take the form of a Senate resolution at the time of acquittal. The crucial point is to reject impeachment as a regular tool of partisan punishment, reserving it for genuine cases of presidential abuse.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 24, 2020, 06:17:49 AM
Crafty
I am not clear the point of your above post
WH is wrong in their arguments for 'what ' reasons?

setting precedent for what?

the article is quite confusing

IS THIS THE POINT:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/impeachment-doesnt-require-a-crime/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=first
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2020, 06:51:19 AM
"The AGs add that the “House’s corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which is predisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.”

, , ,

"Once unleashed, the corrupt motives theory will become a temptation whenever a President is disliked and down in the polls. The mere threat of common impeachment will make Presidents much more beholden to Congress.

"With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory."

================

"IS THIS THE POINT:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/impeachment-doesnt-require-a-crime/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=first "?

Not my take at all.  As I think I have consistently articulated, my take is that the correct approach is OF COURSE HE WANTED BIDEN & SON INVESTIGATED.  (Not shouting, just emphasis)



Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 24, 2020, 07:48:16 AM
"With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory."


Problem for me when the word "house " is used rather than "congress"
I get confused from White 'House' or Legislative 'House'

I thought the argument was the White 'House' defense is wrong........

It is just sickening listening the Democrats stand there and grandstand about right and wrong etc
when they lie all day long .

Like the Hawiian girl senator who says anyone who believes the "conspiracy " theory that the DEms were plotting impeachment from day one are crazy .......

   
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 24, 2020, 08:03:07 AM
"OF COURSE HE WANTED BIDEN & SON INVESTIGATED."  (Not shouting, just emphasis)

Yes and it was okay for him to do so because his personal interest was aligned with our national interest. He knew he had staffers and deep staters on the call.  Releasing the transcript immediately upon questioning doesn't fit the accusation of criminal intent - or obstruction. 

The Biden-Ukraine thing OTOH doesn't pass the corruption smell test.  The merits of the specific act of firing the prosecutor can be debated, but the relationship of his immediate family receiving unexplainable amounts of money from a known corrupt source where then VP Joe Biden had direct responsibility is corrupt by design.

The investigation called for could lead to exoneration or no charges, but "make up dirt" is a direct projection of Schiff's party hiring Christopher Steele, prostitutes peeing on beds because someone black once slept there.  The Trump-Russia thing started with nothing.  The Biden-Ukraine is crooked on its face.

The allegation is that Trump just wanted an official announcement of an investigation.  House Managers in effect are admitting that the act of drawing attention to it would hurt Biden because - - - the relationship was crooked on its face.
Title: Hunting Hunter
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2020, 10:50:21 AM
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/will_an_arkansas_stripper_finally_shut_down_the_schiff_show.html

Title: *Skaneateles *
Post by: ccp on January 24, 2020, 01:49:36 PM
"Skaneateles LLC"

Weird

Katherine grew up in "Skaneateles" NY.

How did the deadbeat dad get that name.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2020, 03:48:10 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/24/lindsey-graham-opposes-hunter-biden-subpoena-in-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=best_of_the_week&utm_campaign=20200125
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 25, 2020, 05:24:22 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/24/lindsey-graham-opposes-hunter-biden-subpoena-in-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=best_of_the_week&utm_campaign=20200125

Glad to see he is carrying on McStain's legacy of backstabbing us.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 25, 2020, 10:10:10 PM
I saw it reported that after today, President Trump is agreed.
Title: A twitch of coherence from the left
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 26, 2020, 11:36:53 AM
https://www.truthdig.com/videos/chris-hedges-democrats-have-no-moral-authority-on-impeachment/
Title: Mitt
Post by: ccp on January 27, 2020, 08:27:00 AM
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/romney-republicans-bolton-testimony/2020/01/27/id/951452/

Mitt,
what is your point
we already see what happened
witnesses are not going to help

bottom line we either tow the line or all become socialists
Why do Repubs always have to have a person who back stabs us while playing the virtuous
who listens to the angels blah blah blah

Yes obviously Trump held the aide
what is the point
of endlessly piling on witnesses

You either throw him out or explain why you are not ........

For God's sake ......

Title: Small world-Big Deep State
Post by: G M on January 27, 2020, 10:35:46 AM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/385490.php

Coincidence.
Title: Re: Mitt
Post by: DougMacG on January 27, 2020, 12:49:23 PM
Somehow I doubt Bolton will have shoot the silver bullet that brings down President Trump.  Plus there are legitimate Ecxecutive privilege issues.

If enough Senators want witnesses and the Democrats get to look further for evidence, then the defense gets unlimited access as well.  Let the next act of the circus begin.

I notice that no broadcast network is covering this, not even the main PBS channel.  No one is watching but the people want to hear more?
Title: Re: Small world-Big Deep State
Post by: DougMacG on January 27, 2020, 12:51:05 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/385490.php

Coincidence.

"You can’t make this up"
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2020, 02:34:59 PM
Another article https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/vindmans-twin-brother-in-charge-of-nscs-process-reviewing-book-approvals/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=the-gateway-pundit&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=daily
Title: McCarthy : argument "no quid pro quo" falling flat
Post by: ccp on January 28, 2020, 04:19:24 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/bolton-blows-up-trump-teams-foolhardy-quid-pro-quo-defense/

Thanks to Romney this whole thing could have been dismissed as soon as it hit the Senate floor.

As usual Trump puts the Senators in ever more difficult positions . - as far as I am concerned screw all the allegations - I don't want a Democrat in 2020.
   But for the Rinos in the Senate - ..............

And I wanted Bolton in the Trump administration ...............  Now the Left's most dreaded "war monger" foreign policy advisor is their best friend.

And he gets paid for it in book sales.



Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2020, 09:46:54 AM
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/democrats-kavanaughing-impeachment-trial-as-predicted-john-bolton-leak-came-as-house-case-was-collapsing/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 28, 2020, 01:59:35 PM
"https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/democrats-kavanaughing-impeachment-trial-as-predicted-john-bolton-leak-came-as-house-case-was-collapsing/"

Well . it may work

we have all the news outlets with the headlines and reports of some Repubs caving in to witnesses now.

Trump can't be exonerated
The Left is firm on this.
He is guilty no matter what.


so now Drudge has it that witnesses will be called
OK Donald now you are going to get your full trial to exonerate yourself on your "perfect" "beautiful" call
now we have endless destructive headlines into the future

Thanks Mitt Romney !   this could have been dismissed on day one if not for you from what I read
Title: so when is granting favors to other countries impeachable?
Post by: ccp on January 28, 2020, 03:01:16 PM
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-bolton-book-trump-china-turkey-william-barr_n_5e2f947dc5b6d34ea1041ce1

answer : since Trump took office.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Trump Defense
Post by: DougMacG on January 28, 2020, 08:44:26 PM
Andy McCarthy says don't build the foundation on quicksand.  Other than that I thought they did a good job.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/bolton-blows-up-trump-teams-foolhardy-quid-pro-quo-defense/

To Crafty's point, McCarthy writes:  "There is a good-faith basis to suspect the Bidens were involved in corrupt self-dealing."

Our nation had an interest in getting to the bottom of it - just like he said on the call.  Doesn't that alone settle it?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2020, 08:52:15 PM
"There is a good-faith basis to suspect the Bidens were involved in corrupt self-dealing."

"Our nation had an interest in getting to the bottom of it - just like he said on the call.  Doesn't that alone settle it?"

YES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 28, 2020, 09:05:52 PM
"There is a good-faith basis to suspect the Bidens were involved in corrupt self-dealing."

"Our nation had an interest in getting to the bottom of it - just like he said on the call.  Doesn't that alone settle it?"

YES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You two are ignoring the pillar of the left's legal framework:

ORANGE MAN BAD!!!!!!!111!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!
Title: Cherry picking
Post by: ccp on January 29, 2020, 04:32:37 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/480393-nadler-floats-john-kelly-as-potential-impeachment-witness

Funny how the Left cherry picks something Kelly apparently said about Bolton.

The day prior , my sister who lives in Sarasota said she went to see John Kelly and thought he was very good.

What she heard was actually all quite positive about Trump.
He lamented that he could not help Trump stay out of some fixes , but he agrees with most of his policies

He agrees with him on Iran , China- trade, the military etc.

He noted China is "way ahead of us" with their 50 year plans .  The have long term plans and stay focused on achieving their goals playing the long game compared to us who change every 2 yrs with the political winds

He mentioned he was surprised about how the politics control everything in DC and how legislators only think of getting elected far more than achieving anything and that that is worse then he dreamed.

he thinks having more ex military in the government would be a good thing.

My sister didn't even recall him saying anything about Bolton at all.
But she clearly told me he did NOT say anything bad about Trump.

Of note he started out by saying something to the tune of I know half of you (audience) are for Trump and half against.

So we know the little Left spies who are against are looking and hoping he would say negative things about Trump. 
He did not .  Yet the picked something he said at some point and use one sentence to bash DJT over the head with it.

I doubt Gen Kelly would be pleased by this.


Title: maybe they can dispense with soon afterall
Post by: ccp on January 29, 2020, 02:21:49 PM
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/gop-trial-witnesses/2020/01/29/id/951863/
Title: Consequences of the destruction of Executive Privilige
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2020, 02:44:47 PM
https://www.amgreatness.com/2020/01/28/bolton-and-the-consequences-of-the-destruction-of-executive-privilege/
Title: Bolton the Snake
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2020, 09:58:46 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/29/democrat-john-bolton-suggested-ukraine-investigation-once-he-left-white-house/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20200129&utm_content=Final
Title: Bolton the snake
Post by: ccp on January 30, 2020, 04:25:45 AM
yes

I recall reading some statement he made publically after being fired
and the clearly implied he was all about revenge.

like someone on cable said

he was not the President - Trump is .

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2020, 08:20:59 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/flashback-adam-schiff-said-john-bolton-lacks-credibility-and-is-prone-to-conspiracy-theories/
Title: Sen. Rand Paul says "Holdemort"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2020, 03:15:43 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/chief-justice-censors-question-whistleblower-rand-paul-releases-public/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2020-01-30&utm_campaign=manualpost
Title: Re: Sen. Rand Paul says "Holdemort"
Post by: G M on January 30, 2020, 06:30:42 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/chief-justice-censors-question-whistleblower-rand-paul-releases-public/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2020-01-30&utm_campaign=manualpost

Chief Justice of the Deep State.


It's pronounced C.I.A.-Merella
Title: 50-50 vote ?
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2020, 04:30:06 AM
Lets see
if murkowsky refuses to acquit without witnesses

and collins we know did
that leaves of course the one dragging it out as long as he can soak it to stay in the spotlight . ----->>>> . Mitt

I will be surprised if he does not pull a John McCain

so that leaves a 50-50 tie
then what ?  Roberts makes the final call?

We can be sure he will allow witness on the side of erring on "lets hear all the evidence"

Title: Re: 50-50 vote ?
Post by: DougMacG on January 31, 2020, 06:05:35 AM
Pence steps in to break the procedural tie?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2020, 06:35:32 AM
Roberts gets to make final call , , , if he wants.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 31, 2020, 07:29:03 AM
Roberts gets to make final call , , , if he wants.

Well then he will rule for witnesses if half want that.

This still could end today. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/morning-report/480834-the-hills-morning-report

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480833-senate-moves-to-impeachment-endgame

I am neutral on the issue of dragging this out forever now that it's started. 

Bernie should crossover and say something like he said with Clinton, I'm tired of hearing about your damn emails.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2020, 08:01:38 AM
" .Bernie should crossover and say something like he said with Clinton, I'm tired of hearing about your damn emails."

Great point Doug

just highlights the damn dems total hypocrisy
on the issue as well as everything else

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2020, 02:13:06 PM
Dough wrote

"I am neutral on the issue of dragging this out forever now that it's started. "

What is the point of dragging this out?

We all know what happened.  Why do we need walrus face or other "witness " to tell us what we already know.

yes Trump talked to Ukraine and tried to get them to investigate Biden.  The appearance is of course he was holding up the money.

The point is not to dispute this any longer AD freakin NAUSEUM.

The point is to argue that ain't impeachable which has been made AD NAUSEUM.  The the Republicans have to stand firm and tell the Crats
NO you are not going to get away with this entrapment and make a power grab from us.

That's it.

So why keep dragging this out more.
So we can look at the obnoxious little shits on CNN MSNBC and NYT , WP and yahoo news (that little shit Dylan Stabelford)
etc.....  blasting the same stuff in our faces?

Bottom line Trump stays. the End

Thank you for listening and I feel better.
Title: Romney votes to convict, remove
Post by: DougMacG on February 05, 2020, 11:13:37 AM
Does that make it bipartisan? 

Mitt's work is done.  He can resign anytime now.

Doug Jones, Alabama, voting to convict.

Manchin acquittal vote makes it bipartisan both ways.  Anyone else?
Title: Rinos go home and stay there
Post by: ccp on February 05, 2020, 02:16:48 PM
****Doug Jones, Alabama, voting to convict.

Manchin acquittal vote makes it bipartisan both ways.  Anyone else?***

did not happen

all dems vote to remove from office
of course Rom douche has to side with his warped conscious

and give the Democrat media the chance to claim that one Republican Senator out of 53 makes it bipartisan
Manchin as ALWAYS (except for Kavanaugh) , in the end , sides with the DEMS who will make his life a living hell if he does not.

Utah should make sure Romney's political career as a rino is over .
   He is rich - I doubt he will care.   Just go back to the Olympics or something

Funny ,  hard to believe the biggest pain in the ass Republicans :
1) .  McCain was our nominee in '08 . (LOSER!  oh but he is so nice)
2) .  Romney was our nominee in '12 (LOSER oh but so moral)

Maybe Romney will get on the BOD for CNN .
   Thanks Mitt.  Thanks for all your service.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 05, 2020, 03:24:11 PM
Well, we should have good shot at flipping AL and WV , , ,

FG Romney.  He just

Can't
Understand
Normal
Thinking.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on February 06, 2020, 07:35:04 AM
"Manchin acquittal vote ...
did not happen
all dems vote to remove from office"


Wow, did I get that wrong.  Trump carried WV by 40 points and Manchin sides with his buddies in Washington over the people back home.  Unless one believes there was merit to the case but we already ripped that to shreds.

"Well, we should have good shot at flipping AL and WV , , ,"

I have to guess Jones figured he couldn't win again in Alabama anyway.  He is a sharp guy, can easily land in Washington/media.  Future Meet the Press panelist former US Senator Doug Jones. 

Manchin in effect announced his retirement with this vote.

Reminds me, I used to play tennis with Ahmad Rashad, then wide receiver for the Vikings.  One Sunday, still in his prime, the ball was thrown to him high over the middle on a big 3rd down they needed to convert.  There were two defenders coming at him from two directions ready to crush him as he would make the catch.  Rashad (Bobby Moore) was a big rebounder in college basketball.  Making that kind of big catch (and taking the hit) was what he did for a living.  Ahmad (Akmad as Bud Grant called him) didn't go up and didn't make the catch.  The two defenders crushed each other and laid there on the field.  I said to my TV, I guess he's moving on to life after playing football.  He announced his retirement that week.

Good Bye Joe Manchin.  You needed to go up and make that catch.
----------------------------
The Romney vote is likewise shocking but of no matter.  It still goes down as a party line vote; Willard Mitt Romney is a man without a party.

A few days ago Romney said he could not make an informed decision without hearing from more witnesses, John Bolton in particular.  Losing the witness vote he now believes the case of abuse of power is proven anyway.  If so Mitt, why the vote to waste our time with more witnesses?  I know the answer to that.  He just wanted every minute possible of making President Donald Trump look bad.  It was nothing to do with getting it right or removal from office.  The majority of the Senate including ALL on his side believed the charge if true was not an impeachable offense.

The whole pretense that Joe Biden was known to be Donald Trump's general election opponent was nonsense from the start.  He has run three times and has yet to win a single delegate.

I learned something HUGE this week from Romney.  I never before believed that we are better off to have a Democrat win than to elect a lousy Republican.  Not true in 2012.  Romney losing made Trump possible.  Romney losing made tax reform and deregulation possible.  Romney made Trump wage growth possible, four years delayed.  Romney losing made Gorsuch and Kavanaugh possible and 170 other quality federal judges.  Romney losing brought down the hold China had on our economy. 

Thank you Mitt.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on February 06, 2020, 07:55:40 AM
".I learned something HUGE this week from Romney.  I never before believed that we are better off to have a Democrat win than to elect a lousy Republican.  Not true in 2012.  Romney losing made Trump possible.  Romney losing made tax reform and deregulation possible.  Romney made Trump wage growth possible, four years delayed.  Romney losing made Gorsuch and Kavanaugh possible and 170 other quality federal judges.  Romney losing brought down the hold China had on our economy.

Thank you Mitt."

 :-D

though we did have to suffer through 4 mores yrs of Racist/classist  socialism

we barely survived Obama

I don't know we can survive another 4 let alone another 8 yrs of another Obama
 like Presidency.

OTOH the Left will not go away.
I fear but know what they will do to this country when they get control of government again .

It will be a political holocaust - all our dreams, beliefs , hopes will be exterminated. to their way of control
Title: not likely but if cans can take back the House
Post by: ccp on February 06, 2020, 06:38:49 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/republicans-plan-to-expunge-impeachment-of-president-trump-if-they-take-back-the-house
Title: Vindman escorted out
Post by: ccp on February 07, 2020, 03:39:52 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/youre-fired-trump-considering-ousting-lt-col-vindman-from-national-security-council/

CNN limo ready to pick him up and have meeting with Zucker for job interview
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 07, 2020, 06:01:31 PM
The Hall Monitor got marched down the hall!

Biden called for and got a standing ovation for him tonight.

Title: Re: Vindman escorted out
Post by: G M on February 07, 2020, 09:09:35 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/youre-fired-trump-considering-ousting-lt-col-vindman-from-national-security-council/

CNN limo ready to pick him up and have meeting with Zucker for job interview

He may be spending some quality time in a military prison. Should be, if there is any justice at all in this country anymore.
Title: The Impeachment argument has just begun
Post by: DougMacG on February 10, 2020, 09:35:06 AM
Through the entire process I could say impeachment was not what people out in the heartland were talking about.  It was a silent background issue.

R's and D's both knew he wouldn't be removed from office and just watched the process unfold quietly.  Markets didn't panic and foreigners never wondered who was really in charge.  The purpose was to mark and stain him for the process of defeating him. The result seems to be the opposite.  Trump can now rightly claim he was acquitted.  His popularity is up, his base is energized and the opposition is in disarray for a variety of reasons.

Socializing with friends from the Democrat side this weekend I was surprised by how front and center the impeachment aftermath is for them.  One takeaway seemed to sum it up: 'The first article, abuse of power was 100% proved.'  From their point of view: Trump did abuse his power, it was proved, everyone knows it but only one Republican Senator could stand up to him.  Digging deeper, the point was proved that he did hold up needed military aid in exchange for getting what he wanted.  Clear quid pro quo.  With a small room full of people jumping in it was hard to effectively pick that argument apart.  Some of my rebuttals taken individually sounded kind of weak.  I can take more time here.  )   The arguments have all been made here but if we are right we need to sharpen this up for the long political season.  The competing narrative is alive and well.

1.  Quid pro quo means nothing in itself; it describes every transaction , every foreign aid transaction.  The central question in impeachment: was he demanding something in his personal interest that was (unquestionably) against the public interest?

If newspapers say the whole Biden matter and everything else Trump said or thought about Ukraine was already debunked, is that so or is there still a legitimate point to be made for looking into it?  I'm afraid that is an losing point to be made to those who are informed by only those same sources.  The only real data point I could add in hindsight is that Gallup and every other poll rate the credibility of these 'mainstream sources' below Trump, meaning near zero. 

2.  Is it off limits to look into corruption if your potential opponent is part of it?  Of course not or how could they justify going after Trump for so long.  Okay, the double standard argument doesn't work on them either.

3.  The outrage about holding up needed military aid, when it comes from pro-Obama Democrats, is pure silliness.  I could not convince my friend that President Obama held up military aid to Ukraine for 8 years.  Highly informed but did not know that, nor willing to believe me.  Still not a winning point.

4.  The biggest point: what is the level of seriousness of what was alleged, committed or discovered.  If true, is this an impeachable offense?  We have vague testimony, implied conclusions, minor delay, alleged words and actions, doubt that Biden is even the opponent, uncertainty about where  the corruption really was, but then the consequence demanded was to not only remove him from office, but to ban him from ever seeking or holding any public office ever again.  In other words, Democrats sought to decide who Republicans can or can't vote for this year.  63 million people and likely way more, in impeachment, would be denied having their choice on the ballot, and more than that perhaps would be denied the right to vote against him.  To Democrats, this proposed interference in the next election is how we keep Trump from interfering with the next election.  That makes no sense, absent real proof of truly working against US interests.

The people, in this case, ought to have the right to over-ride a mistake made by Congress in the next election.  Since the impeachment / Conviction / Removal verdict does not allow that, the bar for that must be EXTREMELY high.  This didn't come close.
Title: Big news : WH IDed "anonymous"
Post by: ccp on February 10, 2020, 01:36:45 PM
"The White House has identified and will be parting ways with the “anonymous” senior Trump administration official behind the critical editorial published in the New York Times editorial in September 2018, and a recently published book, A Warning, according to former U.S. attorney Joe diGenova, who made the claim Monday morning on WMAL’s “Mornings on the Mall.”"

eventually we will find out who the scum bucket is.

how about a lead to Breitbart! 
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Take away Republicans right to vote
Post by: DougMacG on February 12, 2020, 02:10:06 PM
The Democrats' impeachment included "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office...[in] the United States."

They sought to ban Trump from ever appearing on a ballot again, most significantly to not appear on this year's Presidential ballot.

They are nominally aimed at one man Trump but in fact hitting 63-85 million people, preventing them from being able to exercise the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Instead of being so murky, they should propose what they really mean, ban Republicans from voting.  They did it with slaves, why not Republicans?

Leftist Math: 1. Republicans voted wrong in the first place, 2016.  2. Failed to remove him from office when the facts against him were proved,2020, and 3. that makes three strikes.  Out.  That's how you make sure it doesn't happen again.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Take away Republicans right to vote
Post by: G M on February 12, 2020, 08:00:51 PM
They have already floated this idea. This is the plan.

The Democrats' impeachment included "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office...[in] the United States."

They sought to ban Trump from ever appearing on a ballot again, most significantly to not appear on this year's Presidential ballot.

They are nominally aimed at one man Trump but in fact hitting 63-85 million people, preventing them from being able to exercise the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Instead of being so murky, they should propose what they really mean, ban Republicans from voting.  They did it with slaves, why not Republicans?

Leftist Math: 1. Republicans voted wrong in the first place, 2016.  2. Failed to remove him from office when the facts against him were proved,2020, and 3. that makes three strikes.  Out.  That's how you make sure it doesn't happen again.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2020, 03:39:54 PM
I tried the Search function unsuccessfully.  I need as legalistic a discussion as possible that Vindman acted because Trump opposed US policy.

Thank you,
Title: bias of jury foreman
Post by: ccp on February 15, 2020, 07:35:11 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/roger-stone-juror-could-serve-jail-time-for-lying-about-her-anti-trump-bias/

and if DC jury probably most if not all jurors
Title: Why Trump was right to boot Vindman
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2020, 02:41:37 PM

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/11/why-trump-was-absolutely-right-to-boot-alex-vindman/
Title: Re: Why Trump was right to boot Vindman
Post by: G M on February 17, 2020, 02:46:30 PM


https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/11/why-trump-was-absolutely-right-to-boot-alex-vindman/#.XkR6CY632sc.facebook

Delete this: #.XkR6CY632sc.facebook
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 17, 2020, 02:53:00 PM
Done.  Thank you.  I need to develop the reflex to keep an eye out for this!
Title: Bolton to Susan Rice: My testimony would have changed nothing
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2020, 07:28:39 PM
https://apnews.com/1c269df302e881e972137be6c128c88a
Title: Re: Bolton to Susan Rice: My testimony would have changed nothing
Post by: G M on February 20, 2020, 08:16:13 PM
https://apnews.com/1c269df302e881e972137be6c128c88a

He did sell books, though.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2020, 09:05:15 PM
Not yet , , ,
Title: Here we go again: whistle suckers & their Dem. operative lawyers
Post by: ccp on February 27, 2020, 04:11:34 PM
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hhs-whistleblower-coronavirus_n_5e584414c5b6450a30bc2cd3
Title: Bolton admits
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 28, 2020, 09:23:33 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/john-bolton-admits-last-minute-impeachment-leak-was-a-publicity-stunt/
Title: Re: Bolton admits
Post by: G M on February 28, 2020, 09:25:08 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/john-bolton-admits-last-minute-impeachment-leak-was-a-publicity-stunt/

Yup.
Title: IG Atkinson deserved to get fired
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 06, 2020, 11:19:43 AM
https://patriotpost.us/articles/69750-icig-atkinson-deserved-to-get-the-boot-2020-04-06
Title: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, FCC investigating dirty Schiff's privacy breaches
Post by: DougMacG on April 20, 2020, 06:50:18 AM
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/04/adam_schiffs_dirty_impeachment_tactics_coming_to_light.html
Title: Dershowitz: Flynn innocent all along
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 08, 2020, 12:31:50 PM
Flynn Was Innocent All Along: He Was Pressured to Plead Guilty
by Alan M. Dershowitz  •  May 8, 2020 at 8:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15997/michael-flynn-innocent
           
   From a legal and policy point of view, encouraging the FBI to misuse its legitimate authority to investigate past crimes, solely to create future crimes is both immoral and illegal.
   Let us hear now from the former civil libertarians for whom any violation of law is permissible, as long as it is directed at a Trump associate.
   Anyone who knows how the system works in practice would understand why an innocent man—or a defendant in a close case—might be coerced into pleading guilty.... in this case, it is alleged that the government threatened, if Flynn did not plead guilty, to indict his son.
   There must be a single standard of justice and civil liberties -- including the presumption of innocence -- that transcends partisan politics. This message has been forgotten by both parties.
 
The Justice Department has agreed that General Michael Flynn did not, in fact, commit any crime. Let us hear now from the former civil libertarians for whom any violation of law is permissible, as long as it is directed at a Trump associate. Pictured: Flynn, then US National Security Adviser speaks during at a press briefing at the White House in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2017. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images)
More than a year ago I wrote that it was clear General Michael Flynn should never have pleaded guilty because he did not commit a crime. Even if he lied to the FBI, his lie was not "material." For a lie to be a crime under federal law, it must be material to the investigation – meaning that the lies pertain to the issues being legitimately investigated. The role of the FBI is to investigate past crimes, not to create new ones. Because the FBI investigators already knew the answer to the question they asked him—whether he had spoken to the Russian Ambassador—their purpose was not to elicit new information relevant to their investigation, but rather to spring a perjury trap on him. When they asked Flynn the question, they had a recording of his conversation with the Russian, of which he was presumably unaware. So his answer was not material to the investigation because they already had the information about which they were inquiring.
Continue Reading Article

Title: Farkas admits fibbing
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 08, 2020, 11:36:41 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/obama-defense-official-evelyn-farkas-admitted-she-lied-on-msnbc-about-having-evidence-of-collusion/
Title: Flynn file civil liberl suit
Post by: ccp on May 09, 2020, 07:45:06 AM
against all these obama liars

he besmirched his reputation
Title: Mollie Hemingway on the Jan 5 meeting
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2020, 08:50:43 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08/obama-biden-oval-office-meeting-on-january-5-was-key-to-entire-anti-trump-operation/

and some hyperventilating that may prove prescient:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/crooked-obama-panics-deep-state-reporter-isikoff-releases-leaked-call-former-presidents-fingerprints-attempted-coup-documents-coming/
Title: Impeachment Hoax - plot thickens - Yovanovitch lied about Burisma
Post by: DougMacG on May 13, 2020, 05:38:46 AM
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/impeachment-boomerang-contacts-exposed-between-us

uring President Trump’s impeachment, former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified to Congress that she knew little beyond an initial briefing and “press reports” about Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas firm that had hired Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and was dogged by a corruption investigation.

“It just wasn’t a big deal,” she declared under oath on Oct. 11, 2019.

But newly unearthed State Department memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show Yovanovitch’s embassy in Kiev, including the ambassador herself, was engaged in several discussions and meetings about Burisma as the gas firm scrambled during the 2016 election and transition to settle a long-running corruption investigation and polish its image before President Trump took office.
Title: Counter argument on Flynn
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 13, 2020, 08:12:17 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opinion/bill-barr-michael-flynn.html
Title: Several strong reads
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2020, 11:52:07 AM
https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

https://theappeal.org/the-epidemic-of-brady-violations-explained-94a38ad3c800/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/497711-the-unmasking-of-joe-biden

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-orders-review-of-possible-perjury-charge-against-flynn/

Title: rick bright on sick leave for Hypertension
Post by: ccp on May 14, 2020, 03:58:28 PM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/05/14/congressman-to-whistleblower-doctor-youre-too-sick-to-not-go-to-work-but-youre-here-testifying-n2568831

in over 30 yrs I have never written or seen HTN as a reason for sick leave.

unless an airplane pilot  but for a desk kind of guy

I suppose the lawyers told him to claim he has stress and he is danger for his health because his BP is. up.
in my experience this is almost always bullshit.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2020, 04:45:52 PM
Well, isn't hypertension a comorbidity variable?
Title: Soft Coup 1.0
Post by: G M on September 09, 2020, 09:18:29 AM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/390091.php

Done with money taken from us at gunpoint.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 4.0: Impeachment 4.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2021, 08:29:15 AM
Watching a bit of the House speechifying today (Jim Jordan spoke well) and some questions that were raised caught my attention:

Putting aside the merits and the politics, where is the Due Process?

Doesn't the impeachment process begin in the Judiciary Committee?  Instead on Day One we are on an up-or-down vote on the House floor.

If would seem that the trial in the Senate does not even begin before Trump is out of office (unless McConnell calls the Senate into session early) does the Congress have jurisdiction over an  ex-President?  If not, then he stands formally accused without a chance to defend himself.  Does this make the impeachment in the House unconstitutional?

Impeachment and Senate trial take the Congress out of its legislative role and into functions otherwise reserved to the Executive and the Legislative branches because of the political need in our Constitution for a process to remove a President.   (For example, what if we were to discover our President was being paid by the Chinese?) When Trump leave office on the 20th, that political need is over.  The idea that the Congress could continue to prosecute him after that is a violation of the Separation of Powers.

Title: Re: Soft Coup 4.0: Impeachment 4.0
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2021, 09:39:17 AM
Watching a bit of the House speechifying today (Jim Jordan spoke well) and some questions that were raised caught my attention:

Putting aside the merits and the politics, where is the Due Process?

Doesn't the impeachment process begin in the Judiciary Committee?  Instead on Day One we are on an up-or-down vote on the House floor.

If would seem that the trial in the Senate does not even begin before Trump is out of office (unless McConnell calls the Senate into session early) does the Congress have jurisdiction over an  ex-President?  If not, then he stands formally accused without a chance to defend himself.  Does this make the impeachment in the House unconstitutional?

Impeachment and Senate trial take the Congress out of its legislative role and into functions otherwise reserved to the Executive and the Legislative branches because of the political need in our Constitution for a process to remove a President.   (For example, what if we were to discover our President was being paid by the Chinese?) When Trump leave office on the 20th, that political need is over.  The idea that the Congress could continue to prosecute him after that is a violation of the Separation of Powers.

Right on all counts in my view.  This is unconstitutional on its face because they are performing this act for a purpose not intended by the constitution.

Looking at the images on the television, I would add the aside that the masks of our time look like muzzles, which is good.  Because of the Dems criticisms of Donald Trump not wearing one means they can't (ever) take them off.

Dem Rep:  "There is no doubt this President broke his oath and incited this insurrection."

If so, there is no doubt Bernie Sanders, AOC and all Democrats broke their oath and incited the shooting of the Republican Congressional leadership including Steve Scalise.  Not a word of blame issued in spite of the career of over the top rhetoric that incited that.  Why?  Because the shooter was accountable for his own actions.  But that obvious fact does that apply here and now because shut up.

Democrats will inaugurate one Kamala Harris who did exactly what they accuse.  After 1600 buildings were burned or destroyed in the Twin Cities and Seattle and Portland were under siege and violent, unlawful occupation, Kamala Harris said the these "protests" should continue.

Exact quote, Kamala Harris, June 18, 2020:
"They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop,” she told him [Cobert]. “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.”

They are burning buildings, terrorizing cities and injuring police by the thousands, but they should not let up.  And she will be elevated by same voters and  politicians to Vice President and maybe President.

Donald Trump should have known that his call for a peaceful march would lead to violence, they say.

Kamala Harris knew these were laden with violence.  Democrats were universally unoffended.

Trump said "fight like hell".  That clearly means insurrection, right?

Do you remember when he said, if they bring a knife, we bring a gun?    No.

It was Obama who said that.

 “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser.

https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

Impeached in absentia, Barack Obama, Jan 3, 2023.  And on it goes...
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2021, 10:27:03 AM
I mentioned that, for many reasons, it might be in Biden's best interest to stop this. 

The other choice is let it play out.  Best estimate, the trial begins Jan 19.  Then on Jan 20 at noon the gavel goes to Chuck Schumer, after the point of removing Trump is moot.  Besides making the trial's continuation unconstitutional, the impeach side loses votes they might have otherwise won.

Joe Manchin already said No.  Many Republicans will vote no.  Once Jan 20 goes by, they might all or nearly all vote no.  But the trial may go on.  Then we will have certain Court challenges which take considerable time and energy to contest, to second guess and to criticize.

All of that IMHO favors those of us who want the ruling party distracted from enacting its radical policy agenda.  Go for it.

Also, in the impeachment debate Republicans are getting equal time to speak.  Compare that with what they get every other day, in the schools, colleges, newspapers and media coverage.  Republicans were winning nearly 50% with no voice whatsoever. 

Democrat Impeachment is the gift that keeps giving.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2021, 10:44:04 AM
I would love to see Trump and his team make their case front and center on the national stage about the election fraud.

Separately, here is this:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm?fbclid=IwAR0nD83ysiE9kXlfs5o7SA4lucnUZnKCLGy1rpCaw2OF6n2MaWrxhs2BgqM
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2021, 11:33:03 AM
quote author=Crafty_Dog
I would love to see Trump and his team make their case front and center on the national stage about the election fraud.
-------------------------------

Wow. Yes.  As they say, get the popcorn, this going to be a show.  Democrats opened the door for all of that in the impeachment article and Trump has a due process right to present his side of it.  Was it a false statement when he said he won the election, won at least 3 of those 6 states and maybe all of them?  Depends on the outcome of a close examination of all the vote fraud allegations.  Was the statement known by Trump to be false when he said it?  Obviously not.  What he believed to be true was sworn to be true in numerous court documents.  No known evidence refutes that.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, vindicated
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2021, 11:40:26 AM
[quote author=Crafty_Dog
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm?fbclid=IwAR0nD83ysiE9kXlfs5o7SA4lucnUZnKCLGy1rpCaw2OF6n2MaWrxhs2BgqM
______________________
In their relatively short table of Senate Impeachment Trials in US history at the link, it will soon read, Donald J Trump, Not Guilty, twice.  What do Democrats gain from that?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, vindicated
Post by: G M on January 13, 2021, 11:58:54 AM
The left loves their showtrials.

[quote author=Crafty_Dog
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm?fbclid=IwAR0nD83ysiE9kXlfs5o7SA4lucnUZnKCLGy1rpCaw2OF6n2MaWrxhs2BgqM
______________________
In their relatively short table of Senate Impeachment Trials in US history at the link, it will soon read, Donald J Trump, Not Guilty, twice.  What do Democrats gain from that?
Title: Impeached.
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2021, 01:37:53 PM
On my screen, 0:00 time remaining, one Democrat didn't vote.

The Republican vote was 197-10 against.  95% voting with the President.  That's not much when you consider all the hoopla over Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell (Senator) giving it support.

So maybe Trump got what he wanted, an airing of the vote fraud issues and the vindication again of a not guilty vote.

Next, the traditional Pelosi slow walk over to the Senate.  Or will she tweet it over?
Title: Re: Impeached.
Post by: G M on January 13, 2021, 01:42:37 PM
It'll be moved over in a convoy of armored vehicles, like a PSD op in Iraq.


On my screen, 0:00 time remaining, one Democrat didn't vote.

The Republican vote was 197-10 against.  95% voting with the President.  That's not much when you consider all the hoopla over Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell (Senator) giving it support.

So maybe Trump got what he wanted, an airing of the vote fraud issues and the vindication again of a not guilty vote.

Next, the traditional Pelosi slow walk over to the Senate.  Or will she tweet it over?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2021, 01:51:10 PM
If the 95% Republican support carries over to the Senate, that means the case falls 15-16 votes short of conviction.

Of the 10 defections, Liz Cheney is the only one I've heard of.  Of the remaining 9, perhaps that is a good thing for Republicans.  Perhaps they did what they needed to do to get reelected.

Next question, how many of the Dem votes were in congressional districts won by Trump?  This won't help them.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 13, 2021, 01:56:49 PM
You guys are still pretending elections matter?


If the 95% Republican support carries over to the Senate, that means the case falls 25 votes short of conviction.

Of the 10 defections, Liz Cheney is the only one I've heard of.  Of the remaining 9, perhaps that is a good thing for Republicans.  Perhaps they did what they needed to do to get reelected.

Next question, how many of the Dem votes were in congressional districts won by Trump?  This won't help them.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 13, 2021, 02:17:13 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/4tq3ul.jpg

(https://i.imgflip.com/4tq3ul.jpg)


You guys are still pretending elections matter?


If the 95% Republican support carries over to the Senate, that means the case falls 25 votes short of conviction.

Of the 10 defections, Liz Cheney is the only one I've heard of.  Of the remaining 9, perhaps that is a good thing for Republicans.  Perhaps they did what they needed to do to get reelected.

Next question, how many of the Dem votes were in congressional districts won by Trump?  This won't help them.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Pence agenda
Post by: DougMacG on January 13, 2021, 02:30:59 PM
Pence rolls out aggressive agenda for his first 100 minutes in office.

https://babylonbee.com/news/pence-rolls-out-ambitious-agenda-for-first-100-minutes-in-office
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 15, 2021, 05:40:28 AM
If we impeach and remove for bad judgment, Democrats will have very short terms.

Pelosi has signed and delivered the impeachment to the Senate. The trial is scheduled to start next Thursday, after he has left office, run by Chuck Schumer, the new, 50-50 Dem majority Senate.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates-house-votes-send-articles/story?id=68277959

Trump will already be a private citizen.  But he is an imminent threat to the country that only conviction can stop.  What?

The fight isn't about Trump.  It's against all who supported him.  Remove their right to vote him in again, even though he isn't running.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 15, 2021, 06:13:25 AM
Exactly.

If we impeach and remove for bad judgment, Democrats will have very short terms.

Pelosi has signed and delivered the impeachment to the Senate. The trial is scheduled to start next Thursday, after he has left office, run by Chuck Schumer, the new, 50-50 Dem majority Senate.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates-house-votes-send-articles/story?id=68277959

Trump will already be a private citizen.  But he is an imminent threat to the country that only conviction can stop.  What?

The fight isn't about Trump.  It's against all who supported him.  Remove their right to vote him in again, even though he isn't running.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 15, 2021, 06:30:05 AM
".The fight isn't about Trump.  It's against all who supported him.  Remove their right to vote him in again, even though he isn't running"

Biden's calls for us to unite

The entire Democrat complex agrees
they just don't mention how they are uniting us

with threat of arrest
losing jobs
losing friends
not being able to get a job in chosen field
denied education
forced to listen to their propaganda day and night
forced childhood education

*** yesterday , I think on Laura they showed a child who reported her parents on the internet  about being at Capital rally***

*** just the day before I was re watching one of the three part series on Stalin.  And it showed the reign of terror of the 1930s. where they would gather quotas of people from all sectors of Russia to be sent to gulags and many beaten and executed.  And spoke of how children were taught to even to turn their own parents in .***

We are only a step away from being sent to prisons , thrown out on the streets and everything taken away, beaten
...
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment - VDH
Post by: DougMacG on January 15, 2021, 06:58:40 AM
I should just let Prof. Hanson write my opinions for me.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/14/an-impeachment-incitement/
By Victor Davis Hanson

January 14, 2021
Donald Trump was impeached again on Wednesday, a week before leaving office in one of the great travesties of modern politics.

Here are reasons why the exercise proved a farce.

One, impeachment was never intended by the founders to become a serial effort to weaken a first-term president. But this latest try will mark the third failed attempt of Democrats in Congress to remove Trump before his allotted tenure.

The first Democratic impeachment effort of December 2017 fizzled. The second impeachment of December 2019 succeeded but predictably failed to obtain a Senate conviction.

This third try will likely not result in a Senate conviction, either.

But from now on, House impeachment will be used by the out-party as a periodic club to wound a first-term president. President-elect Biden should beware.

Two, the country is wracked by a pandemic, recession, a summer of Black Lives Matter and Antifa looting, arson, and violence, and the recent rogue group of Trump supporters storming the Capitol. Washington, D.C. is now militarized in a way not seen since the Civil War. Over 20,000 troops patrol the streets.

Thousands are dying from COVID-19. Politics and incompetence at the state level slow down the widespread vaccination of the vulnerable.

So the last thing Americans now needed was the distraction of virtue-signaling politicians to impeach a lame-duck president who will be gone in a week.

Three, the rushed third impeachment attempt was even sloppier than the first two. There was neither an appointment of a special counsel nor a formal case presented for illegal or improper presidential behavior. Trump’s advocates had no time to present a legal or political refutation of “incitement.”

There was no real debate, just for-show stump speeches in a rushed spasm of hatred—a circus entirely contrary to the Founders’ notion of a solemn and rare procedure.

Four, only those without the prior sin of revving up partisans should cast the first stone.

Many of the supporters of this current impeachment would themselves be impeached under their own vague definitions of “incitement” they now apply to Trump.

In March, then-Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) riled up an angry crowd of pro-abortion protestors at the very doors of the Supreme Court—while it was in session.

To a wild crowd, he threatened individual Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name: “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you . . .”

In February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) angrily tore in half the State of Union Address, after, according to custom, it was handed to her by the president on national television.

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris supported efforts to raise bail for those arrested for street violence during the Antifa and BLM rioting this past summer. She also affirmed that such protests in the streets would—and should—continue.

Candidate Joe Biden boasted he would have liked to take Trump, the sitting president, behind the gym of his youth and “beat the hell out of” him. Biden even excused the violent Antifa as a mere “idea.”

Five, the country is dangerously divided. The president will be gone in days. He has taken and given nonstop criticism—and now belatedly but unequivocally condemned the violence that took place after his rally speech. 

President-elect Joe Biden has promised unity after a contested election and nearly a year of nonstop violence. But so far, we have seen just the opposite. Biden has just compared two U.S. senators to Nazi propagandists.

Some social media have banned Donald Trump for life. Others barred thousands of his supporters. Silicon Valley has even tried to destroy Parler, a conservative alternative to left-wing Twitter.

Yet another impeachment only accentuated these divisions of an already dangerously divided country.

Robert Mueller’s 22-month investigation of the Russian “collusion” hoax sought to hound Trump out of office. Other freelancers tried to distort the 25th Amendment to declare Trump medically unfit and remove him from office.

Do we really wish to institutionalize these efforts to weaken a president? Would a President Biden want his opposition on three occasions to attempt formal impeachment proceedings?

Would Biden welcome a two-year special counsel investigation of the entire Biden family for its alleged efforts to use his name and influence to skim money from foreign governments?

Would Biden wish to face serial 25th Amendment threats to remove him from office on allegations that he frequently seems cognitively lost? 

So what, then, was this latest impeachment gambit really about? Of course, it was a Parthian shot to discredit supporters of Trump—and perhaps stop Trump from running for president again.

But it was also aimed preemptively at opponents of what will soon be the most left-wing Congress in history—one that in days will try to change the very institutions of American government in ways never tried before.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Rudy's view of Jan 6
Post by: DougMacG on January 15, 2021, 03:43:14 PM
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DcHFe6ROBZ2s/
Title: Larry Lib on post presidency impeachment trial in Senate
Post by: ccp on January 15, 2021, 03:57:07 PM
I offered more colorful comment on the little big mans opinion

on Constitution thread
and I suspect the Dem party is always getting him to sign off on legal strategy

for political purposes
the legal strategist behind the scenes who always sides with the Dems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/13/senate-impeachment-trial-constitutional-after-trump-leaves/
Title: Dershowitz: you can't just pull someone off the street and impeach them
Post by: ccp on January 16, 2021, 09:30:35 AM
once they leave office

but  James Clyburn
thinks it just fine to do after Joe  first "100" days

(not withstanding when Dems have Senate control)

to keep Trump from being able to hold any Federal office
in future

and continue to damage the opposition party with help of MSM

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-lawyer-says-capitol-riot-154850442.html

I am not sure Dershowitz apparent reliance on Free Speech as the basis for a defense
while admitting is was politically and morally wrong
is only defense or even best defense

I still have yet to hear or see anything that shows Trump calling for anyone to attack the Capital

he just said "peacefully " march to it. 

In addition why is asking people to march towards the Capital a "moral sin?"

Have we ever heard any one criticize libs marching outside the White House as being morally sinful?

On the argument it was a political mistake -  I was dubious of the attempt in the Houses about the electoral
college votes
but thought it would make a poitical statement
but I was surely against Trump lambasting Pence
In any case , a few hundred people who bust and marched through the inside of the Capital ruined it for all of us.....

And finally the whole reason for the whole spectacle was institutional election fraud real and not rare
and its coverup denial and the rest. - will  continue to be ignored -


Title: if impeachment gets done after DJT leaves office
Post by: ccp on January 19, 2021, 05:14:38 AM
then Republicans should , if they EVER get power again

impeach Obama for Obama Gate
sometime in the future
and all those who enabled him.
Title: Rally Speech Transcript
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 19, 2021, 09:32:11 AM
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6?fbclid=IwAR2fhQdjnHNu_fziLaK9VVD-osy5bB9Y7VQHF9JPgmt7MrOSOEuUOC8mMng
Title: Re: Rally Speech Transcript
Post by: DougMacG on January 19, 2021, 10:57:04 AM
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6?fbclid=IwAR2fhQdjnHNu_fziLaK9VVD-osy5bB9Y7VQHF9JPgmt7MrOSOEuUOC8mMng


"I hope Mike is going to do the right thing."... "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution."

   - The Left says that constitutes an assassination order made in plain sight.  That's makes no sense.  How can he hope Pence will do the right thing if he is inciting his supporters to murder him first?


"You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation."

   - Inciteful?  Just the opposite.  He is contrasting his crowd with people who destroy things.


"You primary them."

   - Calling on his supporters to take this fight to the polling booth.  Undemocratic?  Good grief.


"They don’t go and look at the facts."

   - That is Trump's allegation.  Is it true or is it false?  Was fraud fully investigated?


"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated."

   - Follow the constitutional process, he instructs his followers.


"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

   - Right out of a Martin Luther King civil rights speech.  Was MLK tried for treason?

This is all SO absurd.  He explicitly called on them to behave peacefully and nothing else he said contradicts that.

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 19, 2021, 11:19:50 AM
"Was fraud fully investigated?"

Remember when the FBI seized all the voting machines and suspect ballots and subjected them to forensic examination?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 20, 2021, 08:13:55 AM
FOX reported rumor that the reason Trump did not pardon Assange was that McConnell threatened to vote for impeachment.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on January 20, 2021, 08:33:06 AM
I vehemently oppose Mc Connell's play on this

not sure if he is just sucking up to Dems trying to be able to cut deals with them in future or if he is just trying to get Trump out of the party

but he is pissing off 75 million Republicans

as for Assange  - I have mixed feelings about pardoning him

maybe Pam Anderson could visit Mitch and give him a Monica Lewinski
Title: Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over "impeachment" trial
Post by: DougMacG on January 20, 2021, 08:48:47 AM
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9163665/amp/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-does-NOT-want-preside-Donald-Trumps-second-impeachment-trial.html?__twitter_impression=true

The Constitution states that 'When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.'
-----------
As of noon Eastern time today, there is no Presidential impeachment trial pending.

Correction: I posted a false ABC News story Jan 15 that Speaker Pelosi had delivered the Article of Impeachment to the Senate.  My understanding now is that she still has not done that.  Common sense says she won't do that now or at all.  It will fail and serve to delay confirmations and postpone legislation on the agenda.  On the plus side for them, it will further divide the country. 

The trial is now 100% in the hands of the Democrats.  They can have VP Kamala Harris preside.  What is inherently political becomes nothing but political.  They can reject all evidence and testimony that supports truth in the Trump statements they found inciteful. They are down to the argument that 'go peacefully to the Capitol' really meant break things and kill people, and that he poses an imminent threat to the country because he may run for President again in four years and Americans can't be trusted to judge him for themselves.  They will only get conviction votes from a handful of Republican votes, nothing close to conviction.  It would only be a show trial and the experience in the House was that when Trump finally got equal time to tell his side, his approval went up and theirs stayed down.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/nancy_pelosi_favorableunfavorable-6673.html#polls
Title: Well, the coup by vote/electoral fraud is complete
Post by: G M on January 20, 2021, 09:22:00 AM
https://i.imgur.com/ONUSE7t.jpg

(https://i.imgur.com/ONUSE7t.jpg)
Title: Yes the Senate can try Trump
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 23, 2021, 06:15:13 AM



One of the first questions the Senate will face in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is whether the chamber has jurisdiction to hear a case against a former official. The correct answer is yes.

For the Founders, it would have been obvious that the “power to impeach” included the ability to hold former officials to account. The impeachment power was imported to America from England, where Parliament impeached only two men during the 18th century, both former officers. No U.S. state constitution limited impeachments to sitting officers, and some allowed impeachment only of former officers. In 1781 the Virginia General Assembly subjected Thomas Jefferson to an impeachment inquiry after he completed his term as governor.


Why would former officers be included within the impeachment power? Impeachment trials had long served as a vehicle for exposing and formally condemning official wrongdoing, or for a former officeholder to clear his name. Disqualification from future office was also an important penalty. A former Vermont lawmaker was impeached and disqualified from future state office for leading one of the tax rebellions that spurred the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. The American founders understood the history of demagogues and dictators corrupting republics and the need to exclude them from future office. As one delegate to a state ratifying convention put it, men who held public office should be “within the reach of responsibility” so that “they cannot forget that their political existence depends upon their good behavior.”

There’s no hint in the debate over the Constitution of an exception to the impeachment power as traditionally understood. George Mason insisted at the convention that the text should be encompassing enough at least to cover a case like that of Warren Hastings, the former colonial governor then standing trial in the British House of Lords. Everyone agreed. During ratification James Madison and Alexander Hamilton emphasized that the proposed federal impeachment power was an improvement in constitutional design because, unlike in some states, even current officers could be subjected to impeachment.


The Senate shouldn’t depart from centuries of practice and understanding. Declining to try Mr. Trump would set a dangerous new precedent, denying future presidents and other officials the opportunity to clear their names if they leave office, and allowing them to escape accountability by resigning—or saving their worst acts for the end of their term.

Mr. Whittington is a professor of politics at Princeton and author of
Title: Re: Yes the Senate can try Trump
Post by: DougMacG on January 23, 2021, 02:10:53 PM
I disagree. 
1. His examples all come from states and other countries.
2. Meaning there is no precedent here.
3. The trial would expose his (high) crimes.  So would a criminal trial. This extreme remedy is not the only remedy available
4. The Chief Justice has already declined to preside, downgrading this from a "Presidential" impeachment trial.
5. The process is by definition political.  All it is capable of accomplishing besides vindicating Trump is to ban him from running again.
6. Future elections are another political process available to prevent him from serving in federal office again.
7. "Mr. Whittington is a professor of politics at Princeton".  Roughly speaking, so is Paul Krugman.
8. Even wrong, he could get 3 Supreme Court votes for his view, maybe more, but likely not 5.
9. The trial would end in acquittal.  There aren't new facts to add and 95% of Republicans oppose it.
---------------------------------
The "trial" is not in Democrats best interests.  There is no way it is polling well and it will get worse if/when it happens.  Begs the question, how will \democrats get out of it.  I couldn't think of a way they could save face.  Neither could they.  So it starts with delays.
1. Pelosi did not deliver the article to [former] Majority leader McConnell.  That is her new game. Clever.
2. 2nd delay, Schumer said not until next month, Feb 8.
3.  Guess what?  By Feb 8, the country will have other, more pressing concerns.  3rd delay, indefinite?  They may never say it is dropped, just never hold it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-delay-donald-trump-impeachment-hearing
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-republicans-seek-delay-044721520.html
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 23, 2021, 04:57:04 PM
I should have prefaced my post by pointing out I disagree with it.  I posted in the spirit of "This is what their argument might look like."
Title: Dershowitz
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 24, 2021, 05:25:36 AM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/law-professor-dershowitz-outlines-legal-possibilities-for-senate-on-upcoming-trump-impeachment-trial_3668584.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-01-24
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Leahy
Post by: DougMacG on January 25, 2021, 08:26:09 PM
Good news, Pat Leahy will preside. The senior Democrat promises to be impartial.  Because that's what old dogs do easily, learn new tricks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/07/nastiest-democrat-jay-nordlinger/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 25, 2021, 08:30:40 PM
Good news, Pat Leahy will preside. The senior Democrat promises to be impartial.  Because that's what old dogs do easily, learn new tricks.

The bigger the clown show, the more the FUSA loses legitimacy.


Title: Impeachment, Rats trying to flee sinking ship
Post by: DougMacG on January 28, 2021, 06:29:27 PM
Trump haters (Dems plus Susan Collins) trying to find a way out of the (second) phony Trump impeachment trial.

https://bangordailynews.com/2021/01/27/politics/proposal-from-susan-collins-led-group-would-bar-trump-from-presidency/
Title: Capitol officers suspended
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 29, 2021, 04:46:52 AM
https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/11/police-officers-suspended-capitol-riot-tim-ryan/
Title: WSJ on the Jan 6 rally
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 30, 2021, 06:10:57 AM
Jan. 6 Rally Funded by Top Trump Donor, Helped by Alex Jones, Organizers Say
Publix Super Markets heiress donated about $300,000 to the Ellipse event, organizers say

The rally in Washington on Jan. 6 was arranged and funded by a small group of Trump supporters.
PHOTO: MICHAEL REYNOLDS/SHUTTERSTOCK
By Shalini Ramachandran, Alexandra Berzon and Rebecca Ballhaus
Jan. 30, 2021 8:07 am ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT



The rally in Washington’s Ellipse that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was arranged and funded by a small group including a top Trump campaign fundraiser and donor facilitated by far-right show host Alex Jones.

Mr. Jones personally pledged more than $50,000 in seed money for a planned Jan. 6 event in exchange for a guaranteed “top speaking slot of his choice,” according to a funding document outlining a deal between his company and an early organizer for the event.

Mr. Jones also helped arrange for Julie Jenkins Fancelli, a prominent donor to the Trump campaign and heiress to the Publix Super Markets Inc. chain, to commit about $300,000 through a top fundraising official for former President Trump’s 2020 campaign, according to organizers. Her money paid for the lion’s share of the roughly $500,000 rally at the Ellipse where Mr. Trump spoke.


Ms. Fancelli tapped the fundraising official, Caroline Wren, to handle funding for the Ellipse event, according to organizers. Ms. Fancelli donated more than $980,000 in the 2020 election cycle to a joint account for the Trump campaign and Republican Party, records show.

Neither Mr. Jones nor Ms. Fancelli responded to several requests for comment. In a statement, Ms. Wren said her role for the event “was to assist many others in providing and arranging for a professionally produced event at the Ellipse.”
Title: Trump parts with his lawyers two weeks before the impeachment trial.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2021, 08:04:02 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-parts-with-impeachment-defense-lawyers-less-than-two-weeks-before-trial/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=22810134
Title: Re: Trump parts with his lawyers two weeks before the impeachment trial.
Post by: DougMacG on January 31, 2021, 09:37:27 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-parts-with-impeachment-defense-lawyers-less-than-two-weeks-before-trial/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=22810134

Weird to see NR report word for word from the also biased AP.  First reaction by design, uh oh, Trump is completely out of control - again.  OTOH, 5 lawyers from South Carolina who don't even support Trump probably aren't the only lawyers he is talking to.  And he has already gained from them all their valid arguments.

45 Senators just went on record saying the whole thing is completely unconstitutional.  He needs only 34 to vote with him for acquittal, so the whole thing, if it happens, is a political show trial. Trump's background is showmanship.  His wheel house is political showmanship.  The prosecutors, 'House Managers', were chosen for anti-Trump showmanship.  The response should be in kind.

"Trump wanted them to defend him using unfounded allegations of widespread election fraud and the pair were unwilling to do so, a source told the AP"

   - Good for them, but if they don't see truth in the statements Trump was making, why would they be the best lawyers to c defend him? 

Ted Cruz is fully qualified and was fully ready to argue the fraud investigation case, election stolen case, to the
US Supreme Court.  If not someone else, he will be in attendance, not camera shy, available to speak and ready to go.

"Trump has until Tuesday to respond to the article of impeachment."

   - OMG, just 2 more days?  Thorough, exhaustive response requires 10 words: 

  Client is not guilty.  Proceeding is unconstitutional.  Vote to acquit.

Don't be surprised if there is no trial. If there is a trial, don't be surprised if Democrats end up regretting it.  They take on Trump at his own game, give him a platform to tell the country his side right when he has lost his twitter feed and bully pulpit to do that.  Don't be surprised if Trump takes the stand, not for a moment of denial, but to make his full case that the election was stolen and that the media, courts and election authorities conspired to hide real facts.  Part of his defense is here are the facts...

One more trial point, shouldn't Sen. Leahy recuse himself from voting on anything?  In a trial with no rules, they can have anyone they want preside, but literally, one man is prosecutor, judge and jury?  A country that would does that, we would call what?? 

Besides that the trial is already lost, all legitimacy lost, and the policy agenda is hampered.  Cut losses, you idiots.

On what day do you think the next 'delay' will be announced?  Then what happens with the right to a speedy trial.  All governed by the rules of how to impeach and remove from office an official who is already not in office.  This is SO nonsensical.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 31, 2021, 12:47:41 PM
I would love to see Trump and Cruz tag team!!!
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 31, 2021, 05:22:15 PM
I would love to see Trump and Cruz tag team!!!

Yes.  Why put in surrogates and spokespeople at all?  This is live TV, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it.  Why give it away to lawyers?  This is political theater with the world watching.  Trump is guaranteed at least equal time.  Why squander it.

Only a couple of people could do it better than Trump.  Maybe Cruz.  Maybe Jim Jordan.  Lay out the case of voter fraud like never seen before.  Biden corruption in Ukraine and China are relevant too if you look at the context of the persecution.  Sen. Leahy will gavel it down.  "THE JURY WILL DISREGARD THE TRUTH THEY JUST HEARD!  Trump doesn't need to recognize the authority of the chair and argues why it's relevant, how they announced their efforts to impeach before his inauguration.

If there's a trial, Democrats lost control of it before it started. The recent vote on unconstitutionality is relevant too.

WHERE IS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS?  Oops, this is not a Presidential impeachment trial as defined by the constitution.  It's something else, unprecedented, undefined and without rules.  What.Could.Go.Wrong.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 31, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
I would love to see Trump and Cruz tag team!!!

Yes.  Why put in surrogates and spokespeople at all?  This is live TV, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars worth of it.  Why give it away to lawyers?  This is political theater with the world watching.  Trump is guaranteed at least equal time.  Why squander it.

Only a couple of people could do it better than Trump.  Maybe Cruz.  Maybe Jim Jordan.  Lay out the case of voter fraud like never seen before.  Biden corruption in Ukraine and China are relevant too if you look at the context of the persecution.  Sen. Leahy will gavel it down.  "THE JURY WILL DISREGARD THE TRUTH THEY JUST HEARD!  Trump doesn't need to recognize the authority of the chair and argues why it's relevant, how they announced their efforts to impeach before his inauguration.

If there's a trial, Democrats lost control of it before it started. The recent vote on unconstitutionality is relevant too.

WHERE IS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS?  Oops, this is not a Presidential impeachment trial as defined by the constitution.  It's something else, unprecedented, undefined and without rules.  What.Could.Go.Wrong.

We are well past the point where rules/laws matter.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on January 31, 2021, 05:34:08 PM
We are well past the point where rules/laws matter.

Right.  It's all theater now and we won't often be invited onto the stage.  Make the best of it.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on January 31, 2021, 05:39:33 PM
We are well past the point where rules/laws matter.

Right.  It's all theater now and we won't often be invited onto the stage.  Make the best of it.

Yup.
Title: Constitution does not bar Trump's impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 08, 2021, 01:40:37 PM
The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Removal from office is best understood as akin to a ‘mandatory minimum’ sentence for a crime.
By Chuck Cooper
Feb. 7, 2021 1:55 pm ET



During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, his defenders argued that his misconduct was ultimately private and didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. In the current impeachment of Donald Trump, that’s a hard argument to make with a straight face, since the then-president’s offenses, culminating in the siege of the Capitol, were obviously public and political. So his defenders claim instead that it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try him now that he’s no longer in office.

Forty-five Republican senators voted in favor of Sen. Rand Paul ‘s motion challenging the Senate’s jurisdiction to try Trump. But scholarship on this question has matured substantially since that vote, and it has exposed the serious weakness of Mr. Paul’s analysis.

The strongest argument against the Senate’s authority to try a former officer relies on Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which provides: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried.

But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a “mandatory minimum” punishment: If an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, he is removed from office as a matter of law.


If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t. Article I, Section 3 authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”


That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction. The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.” The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”

Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer. Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.

Some have argued in the alternative that the trial is unconstitutional because Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be presiding. (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the chief justice was asked and declined.) Article I, Section 3 provides that “when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside.”

This argument is mistaken, and the definite article is why: Mr. Trump is no longer the president. Section 3 excludes the vice president from a trial of a sitting president because she would accede to the office if he were convicted. No such consideration applies to Kamala Harris. It appears that Ms. Harris has also declined to preside, so the role will be filled by President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy. But she could unilaterally reclaim that prerogative at any time, including to cast tie-breaking votes on procedural motions or the decision to disqualify Mr. Trump.

The senators who supported Mr. Paul’s motion should reconsider their view and judge the former president’s misconduct on the merits.

Mr. Cooper is a founding member and chairman of Cooper & Kirk PLLC.
Title: The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Post by: ccp on February 08, 2021, 02:39:49 PM
Well Chief Justice doesn't see it that way

or he would be there

Title: Re: The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Post by: G M on February 08, 2021, 02:57:36 PM
Well Chief Justice doesn't see it that way

or he would be there

The constitution means whatever the left wants it to mean!
Title: Re: The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Post by: DougMacG on February 08, 2021, 03:10:08 PM
"The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial"

  - The constitution doesn't define the Senate trial of a private citizen either.  Hence Chief Justice Roberts saying no for him. 

Next in charge of the Senate is VP Harris who also said no.  Her handlers know this is bad politics for Biden Harris to be involved.

Is there really going to be a trial?  One reason the Chief Justice is involved in a Presidential impeachment trial is that constitutional issues do come up during these trials.  Now ultra leftist partisan Pat Leahy will address those?  I don't think so.

On possibility is that the trial starts with constitutional issues that are unresolvable on the spot and gets interrupted for a Supreme Court hearing and ruling.

Another possibility is that Republican Senators consider the 'trial' to be regular Senate order and are not bound to sit silently, can raise objections, ask questions or even participate in the defense, since Leahy is in effect participating in the prosecution.

Most likely scenario I suppose is that Republicans allow 'House Managers' to droll on and then the Trump defense answers it all and knocks their socks off.

One thing is certain with Trump on trial.  The defense will go on offense.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on February 09, 2021, 03:09:32 PM
The argument this 'trial' was 100% persuasive yet no Democrats came over and Republicans lost one more vote.  But the larger question is still answered, 'prosecution' does not have enough votes to convict.  As identified earlier, this 'trial' is being conducted only for show.

Prosecution relied on carefully edited video to imply Trump incited this attack.  Left out of course was where he said go forward "peacefully".

Defense was a professional and persuasive, detailed focus on the words in the constitution. There is only one President. You can't have the impeachment, conviction removal and disqualification clause apply to 'President' Trump and not have the Commander in Chief clause apply to him as well.  The key word and is not negotiable in the consequence removal and disqualification. You can't disqualify him but not remove him, and you cannot remove from office one nit un office.  Also emphasized was the word shall.  Required by the constitution, not negotiable.

Most importantly is the obvious remedy for an official out of office who commited high crimes, prosecute him - and give him all the constitutional protections of a criminal defendant in the process, not conduct a political trial on a private citizen.
Title: Impeachment 2.0, Day 2
Post by: DougMacG on February 10, 2021, 10:10:15 AM
They keep introducing the idea that rigged and fraud is false.  Doesn't that open up the truth defense for Trump?  Was there fraud?  Was there rigging?  How much cheating is too much?

Managers make the point that the Jan 6 rally ended just as Nancy Pelosi gaveled the joint session to order.  Does that not prove there is no way anyone could attend the rally, a distance away, AND break into the capital building.

Then there is the "fight like hell" quotes and wording, like no one in the room has ever uttered or heard those words in a political context that DID NOT REFER TO VIOLENCE.

"Senators, [alleging fraud] is dangerous."

What??  Alleging fraud needs context of whether or not there was fraud.

Senators, ignoring fraud is dangerous. 

To sum up the House Managers argument: Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition, Repetition

I keep looking for new information.  It's just not their.  Just the Left's version of everything that happened through the campaign and post campaign.

Swalwell:  President Trump lost by 7 million votes.  Does he think popular vote is now the law?  Trump lost by 43,000 votes, if the numbers are correct.  And we know they aren't.  All elections have fraud.  This election had fraud.  This election had more opportunities (and likely more motive) for fraud than any election in history.  The complete investigation of all this was conducted by whom, completed when?  No one, never. 

Protest of an election loaded with fraud and anomalies fully uninvestigated was bound to go on until the certification was complete - on Jan. 6.  Everyone had a right to be concerned or upset.  No one had a right to break things, hurt people or trespass.  The link between the two is wholly missing.

The exculpatory quotes of Trump are glaringly absent. 

From memory, 'I hope Vice President Pence will do the right thing.'
   - How can he do the right thing if Trump is calling for his assassination and to violently stop the proceeding?  That makes no sense.

"Go peacefully and patriotically." 

House Managers:  "Deliberately, intentionally, premeditated."
  - If they are referring to the violence:  No it wasn't.

Technically speaking, was it the 'stop the steal' movement or was it the steal itself that incited the mob?
Title: Impeachment coverage
Post by: DougMacG on February 10, 2021, 12:56:25 PM
Powerline's John Hinderaker will be on Fox Prime Time tonight with host Mark Steyn, with a hit time of 7:10 Eastern. The topic will be impeachment.  Should be a fair and entertaining take on the 'trial', even though Mark Steyn cannot pronounce Hinder-acre 's name.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/catch-me-on-fox-news-tonight.php
-------------------------------
Here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoPxbBabxfM
Title: Umpeachment breaks into chaos to end day 2
Post by: DougMacG on February 11, 2021, 08:52:13 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/538357-impeachment-trial-descends-into-chaos-over-lee-objection

House manager quotes Lee (hearsay) out of media.  Sen Lee steps up to say it's false.  Leahy sounds drunk or is he permanently incoherent?  Slurs words, calls the wrong question.  Lee clarifies.  Vote called on the wrong question.  Schumer intervenes stops vote.  House manager 'clarifies' that the point being made was meaningless anyway.  Vote on appeal of the false ruling canceled.  Testimony stricken 'without prejudice'.  Adjourned.

Band Chicago: "Does anybody really know what time it is, does anybody really care?"

Can't make this stuff up. 

House Managers making the strong point that the people breaking into the capitol were bad people doing bad things.  So stipulated.  Yet we now know none of them were at the speech.  So now it wasn't the speech, it was the whole stop the steal thing from long before the election.  But long before the election is when the steal was planned.  The steal is declared false because some people said it was false.  Okay.  That wins you all Democrats and 5-6 Republicans, but we are trying to find out if Donald Trump intentionally incited THIS violence.  If intent is not necessary, why do they keep pushing it?

Not accepting the result is the crime, but the lead House Manager is on record not accepting the result of the previous election right up to January certification.  Lock him up.

Another House Manager used a photoshopped tweet.  All of them are using superimposed (never before seen) video to imply that this is what Trump was seeing while it was happening.  What don't they understand about never before seen?  Trump was still trying to get Senators to make objections to certification.  Isn't that what he was supposed to be doing given these facts.

Democrats are saying he should have called off the riot, but that just supports their false presumption that he called it on in the first place.  He did not.  Trump asked Pence to do the right thing.  He asked demonstrators to be peaceful.  He thought the proceeding was still going forward, and after interruption, it did.  All that will come out for all to hear except for Democrats holding their hands over their ears during the Trump defense. 

Then they will vote and the result will be no worse than the 56-44 of the 'constitutionality' vote.  Trump acquitted, twice.

Meanwhile 'slow' Joe knocked down restrictions on China, decimated the energy sector, halted the economy, formed a task force to take down the judicial branch, extended school closings, pushed back the foreclosure crisis, borrowed another 2 trillion, purged the military, opened the border, socialized medicine and sided with Iran in the Middle East.  How come they don't want to talk about that?
Title: How to do an insurrection
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 11, 2021, 01:34:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRxpvJ6VgQY
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2021, 04:40:44 AM
Is there a youtube of the Dems impeachment video of yesterday?  (13 minutes or so?)
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on February 12, 2021, 05:38:17 AM
Hey CD

I found video of yesterdays
impeachment sham:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLM45VguY2o
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2021, 06:28:12 AM
Smartass :-D :-D :-D
Title: Unpeachment 2, Day 3, The Defense
Post by: DougMacG on February 12, 2021, 10:10:39 AM
One hour into it, I think the defense it hitting it out of the park.  The first attorney covered the whole case, answered every charge and could have rested right there and won the same vote they will win anyway tomorrow.

The second lawyer is going over the charges in detail with context using the door opened by the House Managers, edited video montages.  Democrats must HATE watching themselves doing exactly what they accuse.  It's like the best of conservative talk radio on steroids with no commercials.  Democrats in their own wards making fools of themselves.  Trump finishing his sentences clipped by the House Managers, making it perfectly clear he supports nothing but following the rules, working within the legal framework, supporting law and order, calling for peaceful protest.  Contrast with Democrats openly supporting mayhem.
Title: Re: Unpeachment 2, Day 3, The Defense
Post by: G M on February 12, 2021, 02:50:41 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/392690.php

Dems already making threats to unleash their paramilitaries.



One hour into it, I think the defense it hitting it out of the park.  The first attorney covered the whole case, answered every charge and could have rested right there and won the same vote they will win anyway tomorrow.

The second lawyer is going over the charges in detail with context using the door opened by the House Managers, edited video montages.  Democrats must HATE watching themselves doing exactly what they accuse.  It's like the best of conservative talk radio on steroids with no commercials.  Democrats in their own wards making fools of themselves.  Trump finishing his sentences clipped by the House Managers, making it perfectly clear he supports nothing but following the rules, working within the legal framework, supporting law and order, calling for peaceful protest.  Contrast with Democrats openly supporting mayhem.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 13, 2021, 07:06:24 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/12/ted-cruz-asks-impeachment-managers-if-kamala-harris-incited-riots-from-black-lives-matter-protests/
Title: Trump 2, Unpeachment 0
Post by: DougMacG on February 14, 2021, 06:44:05 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/12/ted-cruz-asks-impeachment-managers-if-kamala-harris-incited-riots-from-black-lives-matter-protests/

Yes, one of the two strangest moments of the trial.  Trump's had no lawyers to back him up that it was reasonable to challenge the result and believe the election was stolen.  And Impeachment Managers were unfamiliar with this VERY famous statement and behavior of sitting Vice President Kamala Harris.  How could they not know; it was played multiple time IN the trial?  Why didn't one of the impeachment managers who was familiar take the question.  In other words, he lied and Cruz was right.  Keep the Senate in session and try Kamala while you are are here, or do you want to wait 23 months and do it when Republicans take the House and impeach here then?  If they do, the Senate must drop everything and hold a 4 day trial with the partisan outcome known in advance, like this was.

What a strange proceeding and what a painful waste of time for all involved.  Trump got stained especially by the slightly increasing number of Republicans turning against him.  Majority against him in both chambers is not a win, but he did win acquittal and is free to run again.  Maybe it was enough to make him not want to.  More likely the opposite. 

The charge of incitement is a crime, high crime, but the proceeding had no legal standards.  Hearsay?  Admissible.  Falsehoods?  Admissible.  Innuendo? Admissible.  Level of proof required for conviction?  Undefined.  Chopped up, overlaid montages of video:  the new standard.  Repetition:  ad nauseum.  Judge presiding?  None.  Jury sequester?  No.  Objections allowed?  None.  Presumption of innocence?  No.

With friends like Mitch McConnell, who needs enemies.  He voted to acquit after saying more persuasively than the impeachment managers Trump was guilty.

Prosecution made the summer riots look like they were nothing and this was everything, yet we had 1600 buildings destroyed in one city alone, including the police headquarters and a federal building.  That was nothing but this was everything?  Absurd.

The whole point of the prosecution was how bad the riot was, not Trump's role in it.  The worst direct quote they had was him saying "fight like hell".  Then the defense played 1000 times people in the room had said the same thing. The real incitement, they argued, was to challenge the result at all.  Then the defense played actual House Mangers challenging the previous election, and the previous losing candidate saying the previous election was stolen.  In fact, Democrats challenged all recent Republican won elections, without consequence.  Trump made a more persuasive challenge than previous challenges because of all the evidence he had on his side.

If this was incitement, how come 100% of those at Trump's speech did nothing violent?  What is the proof that those at the front end of the violence were even Trump supporters, a point was made a thousand times.  And if they were, that makes Trump no more liable than the Bernie Sanders was for the shooting of the Republican leadership.  No charge there.

For me, it was inciteful that media and lying politicians were calling legitimate questions false and baseless when they were neither.  They said it was fully litigated in the courts, but the courts had refused that.  It was inciteful that the US Supreme Court declared the majority of states do not have standing.  What??  It was inciteful to me that Governors and state officials changed rules made by the legislatures, when the constitution specifically gives that responsibility to the legislature. It is inciteful that they leave the border open when in charge and then let those people vote.  Felons too.  Yet I did not insurrect.

Last time all of Washington looked away through the unpeachment charade, the coronavirus came in.  What did we miss this time?

The proceeding wasn't constitutional.  Trump didn't incite.  There were no standards of evidence. There were no witnesses. There was no one to remove if they did convict.  This was a political farce.  This was Democrats and some Republicans telling 74 million people who they can't vote for next time, and more importantly sending a message that you don't challenge the integrity of the Democratic vote machine no matter how corrupt it gets.   
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Sicknick Murder Story retracted
Post by: DougMacG on February 14, 2021, 06:45:31 PM
One day after the trial, oops this one wasn't kilked by Trump protesters as reported.

 https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/14/the-new-york-times-retracts-the-sicknick-story/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 14, 2021, 08:12:59 PM
And throw in the rapid cremation , , ,

Separately,
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mark-meadows-trump-national-guard-riot/2021/02/09/id/1009314/

Translation:  This is why no witnesses.  Pelosi would have been called and revealed as responsible.
Title: Dershowitz on McConnell
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2021, 03:35:44 AM
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17071/impeachment-constitution-mcconnell
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2021, 02:39:45 PM
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/15/house-republicans-demand-answers-from-pelosi-on-what-she-knew-about-security-decisions-surrounding-capitol-riot/
Title: President Trump and the National Guard
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2021, 06:49:28 PM
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2467051/planning-and-execution-timeline-for-the-national-guards-involvement-in-the-janu/fbclid/IwAR04mGJdlMC94uwmTbXgJK81SyPZwsnglIAUEe1NkItdEiMuAtD1hzEBp3U/

Note well Jan 3.

8/6/23:  NOT FOUND.
Title: A very interesting question
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 16, 2021, 08:31:11 PM
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/16/who-is-in-charge-anyway/
Title: Re: A very interesting question
Post by: G M on February 16, 2021, 08:58:21 PM
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/16/who-is-in-charge-anyway/

Trump was mostly only slightly "president" during his term. The Deep State ignored or undermined every directive they could.
 
Title: Serious Read: The Continuing Crisis
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2021, 03:03:07 AM
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-continuing-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR1TWlfpWNZhTLWCDNg4wr27dDbAyKVYv60T0gdSZqUIwTZbmsh2B2HTRo0
Title: Not so armed not so insurrection on Jan 6
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 21, 2021, 01:03:07 PM
https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/19/no-proof-january-6-was-an-armed-insurrection/
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2021, 04:57:31 AM
https://dailycaller.com/2021/02/27/sources-nancy-pelosi-sergeant-at-arms-paul-irving-national-guard-capitol-riot/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=getemails&pnespid=ibdnsPpBAw_N5loTWz1ZqqJ3LQLdkP8PkyYOEdtf
Title: Trump requested/offered National Guard before Jan 6
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 01, 2021, 06:16:36 AM
https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/01/trump-requested-10000-national-guard-troops-at-u-s-capitol-before-january-6th-protests/
Title: FBI Wray evades questions of Brian Sicknick death
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2021, 12:49:48 PM
https://dailycaller.com/2021/03/02/christopher-wray-brian-sicknick-fbi/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2360&pnespid=leBgs6ZHAQuN4fpARjKipvVISb_GnAKqzR_licbl
Title: Machine Gun Pelosi
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 04, 2021, 07:33:46 PM
Could have swore I posted this already, but Search was not turning it up so better late than never here it is:

https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/19/ken-cuccinelli-nancy-pelosi-crew-manned-machine-guns/
Title: Biden Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 20, 2021, 07:22:44 AM
"No, but from my experience, once you start hearing it drive the narratives at the Deputy levels within DHS, then it has taken hold and will make ground.  These folks are long term (SES) career politicians/heads of the Depts. and are dependent on the Administration for the longevity of their careers…once they embrace a course of action it is usually the direction the stream will flow."
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on August 20, 2021, 08:57:40 AM
I am thinking I would not be for impeachment

1). we get Kamala
2)  let Biden screw up more so we can win in 22 and 24
3)  it is distracting tit for tat
4)  our rally cry should be :
       
 his policies in Afghanastan led to disaster
    can anyone imagine what he will do to our economy?

massive risks
keeping interest rates too low for too long - big risk
dems spending like alcoholics in a casino
expanding the entitlements will wreck havoc
and destroy tax payers
pass un payable debt to descendants
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on August 20, 2021, 08:14:16 PM
Still think you can vote your way out of this?

Really?




I am thinking I would not be for impeachment

1). we get Kamala
2)  let Biden screw up more so we can win in 22 and 24
3)  it is distracting tit for tat
4)  our rally cry should be :
       
 his policies in Afghanastan led to disaster
    can anyone imagine what he will do to our economy?

massive risks
keeping interest rates too low for too long - big risk
dems spending like alcoholics in a casino
expanding the entitlements will wreck havoc
and destroy tax payers
pass un payable debt to descendants
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 21, 2021, 07:45:02 AM
Impeach Kommiela as well for dereliction of duty and pre-emptive 25th Amendment for lack of capacity.

BTW, if Larry Elder wins in CA and Sen. Feinstein finally dies, he gets to appoint a Rep. Senator, thus putting the Senate in our hands.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on August 21, 2021, 11:30:42 AM
".BTW, if Larry Elder wins in CA and Sen. Feinstein finally dies, he gets to appoint a Rep. Senator, thus putting the Senate in our hands."

Can he really win there
against the Democrat mafia machine?

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on August 21, 2021, 11:31:53 AM
".BTW, if Larry Elder wins in CA and Sen. Feinstein finally dies, he gets to appoint a Rep. Senator, thus putting the Senate in our hands."

Can he really win there
against the Democrat mafia machine?

Mail in voting.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on August 21, 2021, 11:36:03 AM
Impeach Kommiela as well for dereliction of duty and pre-emptive 25th Amendment for lack of capacity

but then Nancy Pelosi becomes president!

No.   Office   Incumbent
1   Vice President   Kamala Harris
2   Speaker of the House of Representatives   Nancy Pelosi
3   President pro tempore of the Senate   Patrick Leahy
4   Secretary of State   Antony Blinken


81 yo Pat Leahy - did he pass out last yr? 
can anyone imagine Binks as President?!!!?

It is one worse one after another
we are so doomed ........
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: ccp on August 21, 2021, 11:37:46 AM
Mail in voting.

did not someone say there are 1.3 million Repubs in California who do not vote

are we going door to door like the Dems do?

OTOH we work so probably not...................
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 21, 2021, 01:18:29 PM
Impeachment of Biden or Biden-Harris resets the political calculus fundamentally.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on August 22, 2021, 12:20:06 PM
quote author=Crafty_Dog
...BTW, if Larry Elder wins in CA and Sen. Feinstein finally dies, he gets to appoint a Rep. Senator, thus putting the Senate in our hands.

   - Someone tell me again the part where elections don't matter anymore.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on August 22, 2021, 12:48:20 PM
They are going to blatantly steal this election right in front of us.



quote author=Crafty_Dog
...BTW, if Larry Elder wins in CA and Sen. Feinstein finally dies, he gets to appoint a Rep. Senator, thus putting the Senate in our hands.

   - Someone tell me again the part where elections don't matter anymore.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 22, 2021, 03:51:16 PM
Something like this?

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/more-election-fraud-discovered-in-californias-newsom-recall-election/?fbclid=IwAR0oFMW6YufpkpzXTVKgBWKriRrnP1oVmZYV7l-QyxcmvO4PzmIeBuHKy2I

They WILL try.  And we need to FIGHT for fair elections.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on August 22, 2021, 04:08:52 PM
Something like this?

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/08/more-election-fraud-discovered-in-californias-newsom-recall-election/?fbclid=IwAR0oFMW6YufpkpzXTVKgBWKriRrnP1oVmZYV7l-QyxcmvO4PzmIeBuHKy2I

They WILL try.  And we need to FIGHT for fair elections.

Oh, will the SCOTUS intervene in this one? Will the US DOJ investigate?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 22, 2021, 04:13:06 PM
So, rollover and die?
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 22, 2021, 04:29:10 PM
"a friend of a friend of a friend who is neck deep in DC says that the Biden people - who are more or less run of the mill democrat loyalists - are going to Spiro Agnew ol' Kamala - Big Tech's pick for President. This is obviously to keep her from becoming President. Pelosi will become Xiden's VP. The two sides are at war with each other due to Xiden's faster than expected decline and Harris' utter incompetence.

"Pres. Pelosi will pick the next VP and then will step aside before 2024 so her VP can run as President.

"This should be very interesting."
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on August 22, 2021, 07:41:36 PM
quote author=Crafty_Dog
"a friend of a friend of a friend who is neck deep in DC says that the Biden people - who are more or less run of the mill democrat loyalists - are going to Spiro Agnew ol' Kamala - Big Tech's pick for President. This is obviously to keep her from becoming President. Pelosi will become Xiden's VP. The two sides are at war with each other due to Xiden's faster than expected decline and Harris' utter incompetence.

"Pres. Pelosi will pick the next VP and then will step aside before 2024 so her VP can run as President."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not out of the question.  One problem is they still don't have a name.  Who is it, Oprah?  It won't be Gov. Cuomo or Newsome.  Schumer, Schiff, Ilhan Omar?  The head of border security or of the Afghan exit team?

If they had someone, they would have put that person up in the first place.

Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on August 22, 2021, 08:21:55 PM
So, rollover and die?

You don't vote your way out of voter fraud.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on August 22, 2021, 08:24:19 PM
At this point, what difference does it make?

Which figurehead will sit atop our rotted out, corrupt former republic?


quote author=Crafty_Dog
"a friend of a friend of a friend who is neck deep in DC says that the Biden people - who are more or less run of the mill democrat loyalists - are going to Spiro Agnew ol' Kamala - Big Tech's pick for President. This is obviously to keep her from becoming President. Pelosi will become Xiden's VP. The two sides are at war with each other due to Xiden's faster than expected decline and Harris' utter incompetence.

"Pres. Pelosi will pick the next VP and then will step aside before 2024 so her VP can run as President."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not out of the question.  One problem is they still don't have a name.  Who is it, Oprah?  It won't be Gov. Cuomo or Newsome.  Schumer, Schiff, Ilhan Omar?  The head of border security or of the Afghan exit team?

If they had someone, they would have put that person up in the first place.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on August 23, 2021, 01:32:10 AM
At this point, what difference does it make?

Which figurehead will sit atop our rotted out, corrupt former republic?


I'm so old I remember $1.79 gas (last year) and stepped up basis. Real wages growing instead of falling, and maybe a thousand other reasons it matters - to me.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: G M on August 23, 2021, 02:16:48 AM
Sorry, the deep state didn't like the president responsible for those policies.


At this point, what difference does it make?

Which figurehead will sit atop our rotted out, corrupt former republic?


I'm so old I remember $1.79 gas (last year) and stepped up basis. Real wages growing instead of falling, and maybe a thousand other reasons it matters - to me.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on August 23, 2021, 06:40:37 AM
My take is that people who are 'liberal' are not rejecting the people and policies that are 'Leftist' (including deep state), and the 'Republican' brand name sucks for more than half the electorate. Those problems are electoral.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment-As I was saying…
Post by: G M on August 24, 2021, 11:38:30 AM
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/california-man-found-passed-out-car-300-unopened-recall-ballots-and-forged-licenses

They are going to blatantly steal this election right in front of us.



quote author=Crafty_Dog
...BTW, if Larry Elder wins in CA and Sen. Feinstein finally dies, he gets to appoint a Rep. Senator, thus putting the Senate in our hands.

   - Someone tell me again the part where elections don't matter anymore.
Title: Impeachment 2021, order of succession, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Leahy
Post by: DougMacG on September 02, 2021, 01:55:32 PM
Order of succession:  Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Leahy, Blinken, Yellen, Austin and Garland.

Somebody explain the Impeach Biden thing to me from a Republican point of view, if we could.  Before the Harris plunge, Democrats hoped for a change going into reelection anyway for his successor to run as an incumbent.  Let them initiate the switchout and this can be their soap opera.  Kicking out a dirty old man controlled by leftwing handlers gives us another leftwing incompetent controlled by leftwing handlers, also elevates a new Dem to national prominence, Buttigieg, VP??  There's no reason to help with that.

Assume for a second that Republicans take the House next year, Kevin McCarthy takes the place of Pelosi as Speaker, R's pick up a couple of Senate seats (unlikely), Larry Elder wins and becomes Governor of California, Diane Feinstein steps down, Elder replaces her with a conservative Republican, Joe Manchin switches parties and all Republicans vote to impeach and convict BOTH Biden and Harris.  There is no crime they could commit that would win them one more, much less 14 more Democrat votes to convict in The Senate.  Not murder, not treason, not 300 million witnesses, nothing would make them do that.
Title: Re: Impeachment 2021, order of succession, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Leahy
Post by: G M on September 02, 2021, 01:59:53 PM
Having a (D) next to your name means you are protected from all consequences.

Order of succession:  Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Leahy, Blinken, Yellen, Austin and Garland.

Somebody explain the Impeach Biden thing to me from a Republican point of view, if we could.  Before the Harris plunge, Democrats hoped for a change going into reelection anyway for his successor to run as an incumbent.  Let them initiate the switchout and this can be their soap opera.  Kicking out a dirty old man controlled by leftwing handlers gives us another leftwing incompetent controlled by leftwing handlers, also elevates a new Dem to national prominence, Buttigieg, VP??  There's no reason to help with that.

Assume for a second that Republicans take the House next year, Kevin McCarthy takes the place of Pelosi as Speaker, R's pick up a couple of Senate seats (unlikely), Larry Elder wins and becomes Governor of California, Diane Feinstein steps down, Elder replaces her with a conservative Republican, Joe Manchin switches parties and all Republicans vote to impeach and convict BOTH Biden and Harris.  There is no crime they could commit that would win them one more, much less 14 more Democrat votes to convict in The Senate.  Not murder, not treason, not 300 million witnesses, nothing would make them do that.
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 02, 2021, 05:10:33 PM
Doug:

You make very cogent points.

Still I think it worth pursuing as a political tactic even though we are not likely to get it across the finish line.
Title: Impeachment
Post by: DougMacG on September 03, 2021, 05:31:30 AM
Fair enough.  Here is this:

https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2021/09/03/impeach-joe-biden-n2595247

He jumps from the phone call to Pres. Ghani arguably worse than the Ukraine call, to complete dereliction of duty led to arming the enemy, and lying to the American people about not leaving people behind.

What is our standalone sentence for impeachment?
Title: "There is a need, whether it is true or not, to project a different picture."
Post by: DougMacG on September 03, 2021, 11:12:26 AM
Impeachment, Biden:  Is this it?

https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/03/joe-biden-is-lying-to-americans-about-afghanistan/

In a bombshell report on Aug. 31, Reuters reported on an audio recording of a July 23 call between Biden and then-Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. It released a transcript. In the call, Biden stated, “I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things aren’t going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban.”

Biden then gave Ghani his marching orders: “And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.” His own words condemn the president: “Whether it is true or not…” As the indispensable Mollie Hemingway noted on Fox News on Sept. 2, “What this phone call shows is that the withdrawal was, like so many other parts of the war, communicated to the American public with lies.” Indeed it was.

But this was even worse. Again, Hemingway: “While the previous president was impeached over a phone call and accused of a quid pro quo, here you actually have a president asking someone to lie on his behalf and conditioning military aid on part of those lies.”


... in the words of the 2019 Articles of Impeachment against President Trump, President Biden “sought to pressure the Government of [Afghanistan] to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to [Afghanistan] on its public announcement of the [plan]. President [Biden] engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President [Biden] used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process.”


Reuters:
"In the call, Biden offered aid if Ghani could publicly project he had a plan to control the spiraling situation in Afghanistan."
https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-call-before-afghan-collapse-biden-pressed-ghani-change-perception-2021-08-31/
Title: IMPEACH BIDEN-HARRIS
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 05, 2021, 01:59:55 AM
https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/04/biden-surrendered-to-the-taliban-the-gop-must-not-surrender-to-biden/
Title: Impeachment: The call, Biden, Ghani, Reuters
Post by: DougMacG on September 07, 2021, 08:35:07 AM
How do you read this and not conclude Biden is conditioning needed US air support in Afghanistan on Ghani and his people putting forth a better "perception" of how well things are going, "whether it is true or not", for his own political disaster mitigation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/world/excerpts-call-between-joe-biden-ashraf-ghani-july-23-2021-08-31/

WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden and Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani spoke by phone July 23. Here are excerpts from that call, based on a transcript and recording reviewed by Reuters:

BIDEN: Mr. President. Joe Biden.

GHANI: Of course, Mr. President, such a pleasure to hear your voice.

BIDEN: You know, I am a moment late. But I mean it sincerely. Hey look, I want to make it clear that I am not a military man any more than you are, but I have been meeting with our Pentagon folks, and our national security people, as you have with ours and yours, and as you know and I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things aren’t going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban.

And there’s a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.

…..

BIDEN: If you empower Bismillah [Defense Minister Bismillah Khan Mohammadi] to execute a strategy focused on key parts of the population centers, and I’m not a military guy, so I’m not telling you what that plan should precisely look like, you’re going to get not only more help, but you’re going to get a perception that is going to change in terms of how , um…[unclear].. our allies and folks here in the States and other places think you’re doing.

You clearly have the best military, you have 300,000 well-armed forces versus 70-80,000 and they’re clearly capable of fighting well, we will continue to provide close air support, if we know what the plan is and what we are doing. And all the way through the end of August, and who knows what after that.

We are also going to continue to make sure your air force is capable of continuing to fly and provide air support. In addition to that we are going to continue to fight hard, diplomatically, politically, economically, to make sure your government not only survives, but is sustained and grows because it is clearly in the interest of the people of Afghanistan, that you succeed and you lead. And though I know this is presumptuous of me on one hand to say such things so directly to you, I have known you for a long while, I find you a brilliant and honorable man.

But I really think, I don’t know whether you’re aware, just how much the perception around the world is that this is looking like a losing proposition, which it is not, not that it necessarily is that, but so the conclusion I’m asking you to consider is to bring together everyone from [Former Vice President Abdul Rashid] Dostum, to [Former President Hamid] Karzai and in between, if they stand there and say they back the strategy you put together, and put a warrior in charge, you know a military man, [Defense Minister Bismillah] Khan in charge of executing that strategy, and that will change perception, and that will change an awful lot I think.



GHANI: Mr. President, we are facing a full-scale invasion, composed of Taliban, full Pakistani planning and logistical support, and at least 10-15,000 international terrorists, predominantly Pakistanis thrown into this, so that dimension needs to be taken account of.

Second, what is crucial is, close air support, and if I could make a request, you have been very generous, if your assistance, particularly to our air force be front loaded, because what we need at this moment, there was a very heavily reliance on air power, and we have prioritized that if it could be at all front-loaded, we will greatly appreciate it.

And third, regarding procedure for the rest of the assistance, for instance, military pay is not increased for over a decade. We need to make some gestures to rally everybody together so if you could assign the national security advisor or the Pentagon, anyone you wish to work with us on the details, so our expectations particularly regarding your close air support. There are agreements with the Taliban that we [or “you” this is unclear] are not previously aware of, and because of your air force was extremely cautious in attacking them.

And the last point, I just spoke again to Dr. Abdullah earlier, he went to negotiate with the Taliban, the Taliban showed no inclination. We can get to peace only if we rebalance the military situation. And I can assure you…

BIDEN: [crosstalk]

GHANI: And I can assure you I have been to four of our key cities, I’m constantly traveling with the vice president and others, we will be able to rally. Your assurance of support goes a very long way to enable us, to really mobilize in earnest. The urban resistance, Mr. President is been extraordinary, there are cities that have taken a siege of 55 days and that have not surrendered. Again, I thank you and I’m always just a phone call away. This is what a friend tells a friend, so please don’t feel that you’re imposing on me.

BIDEN: No, well, look, I, thank you. Look, close air support works only if there is a military strategy on the ground to support.
Title: MUST VOTE HARDER! Sorry, you already voted.
Post by: G M on September 13, 2021, 08:23:26 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/california-republicans-shocked-discover-theyre-already-voted-recall-election

They are going to blatantly steal this election right in front of us.



quote author=Crafty_Dog
...BTW, if Larry Elder wins in CA and Sen. Feinstein finally dies, he gets to appoint a Rep. Senator, thus putting the Senate in our hands.

   - Someone tell me again the part where elections don't matter anymore.
Title: State Dept memo kills pravda story on Joe's call to the Uke's for Hunter
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 01, 2022, 04:04:18 PM
Make note of this.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/biden-boomerang-newly-released-state-memo-casts-doubt?fbclid=IwAR0Ej5Hjs3KXWJxLrhC6jiIs7iALySz9Hye9-DdmCbSk969057dzPQShx5A
Title: Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 11, 2023, 09:02:23 AM
1)  Still hoping for citations regarding absence of due process for Trump in the second impeachment-- I could swear we had it here but when I tried searching here I could not find it.

2) I could swear I saw in the last few days that the Dems have DELETED all the testimony and records of the second Trump impeachment.  This should be a HUGE DEAL, yes?

Can we find citation on this?

If true, when was this done?  With suspicious timing regarding the Smith J6 charges? i.e. so as to deny Trump access to evidence?
Title: Rove: TX AG Paxton's Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 17, 2023, 03:39:02 PM
The End Is Near for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
He gloated when he got re-elected, but he seems sure to lose his impeachment trial.
By
Karl Rove
Follow
Aug. 16, 2023 6:20 pm ET




469

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(5 min)


image
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton makes a statement at his office in Austin, May 26. PHOTO: ERIC GAY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The highest-profile impeachment trial of a statewide official since that of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2009 will kick off Sept. 5. That’s when the Texas Senate will try Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom the state House voted 121-23 to impeach in May. More than 70% of GOP representatives voted to impeach their fellow Republican, including all five GOP members from his home county.

Many of the impeachment charges involve Mr. Paxton’s relationship with real-estate operator Nate Paul. He gave Mr. Paxton’s mistress a job after she was fired by her boss, a colleague of Mr. Paxton’s wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, and allegedly renovated Mr. Paxton’s Austin home at no cost. In return, Mr. Paxton’s office allegedly gave Mr. Paul “favorable legal assistance” to help keep the developer’s company afloat.

Messrs. Paxton and Paul deny all wrongdoing. Mr. Paxton showed his good character by using taxpayer dollars to pay for an outside law firm to prepare a report disputing the validity of the charges.

The impeachment itself is void, his attorneys argue, because of a statute that bars impeachment for conduct occurring “before the officer’s most recent election, and those allegations were public before voters cast their ballots.” Most of the acts for which the House impeached Mr. Paxton occurred before his 2022 re-election. His people contend they were well known.

But the Texas Supreme Court has held in three cases, including Matter of Carillo (1976), that this so-called forgiveness doctrine doesn’t apply when a “proceeding for removal is authorized by the [Texas] Constitution.” It is so authorized for several top officers, including the attorney general.

Mr. Paxton’s forgiveness-doctrine defense is factually wrong as well. While some of this sprawling scandal was public before the election, lots of new allegations have turned up since then. In June a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Paul on eight counts of making false statements to banks—the shenanigans for which Mr. Paxton allegedly provided “favorable legal assistance” to erase Mr. Paul’s financial problems.

Moreover, one of the House’s most explosive allegations was unknown prior to the 2022 election. Allegedly, Mr. Paxton violated the laws governing prosecutor appointments in 2020 by hiring a junior lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, who then issued 39 grand-jury subpoenas to Mr. Paul’s creditors and critics, including law enforcement and prosecutors investigating the developer. Then Mr. Paxton allegedly lied about it.

When asked in a 2021 Senate committee hearing about the appointment, Mr. Paxton’s deputy said the local district attorney in Mr. Paul’s case asked for help in investigating the developer’s claims that he was victimized by “doctored” search warrants. But the then-district attorney and one of her top aides say they didn’t believe there was an issue with the subpoenas and Mr. Paxton hired the lawyer on his own. Mr. Paxton’s deputy says he’s seen documents from the district attorney’s office that “prove the fact” that it made the junior lawyer a special prosecutor, but has yet to produce them.

We’ve also learned more about the Paxton-Paul relationship. On Wednesday the House alleged that Mr. Paul set up an Uber account under an alias that Mr. Paxton then used to visit the apartment complex where his mistress lived. In a June briefing, Tony Buzbee, Mr. Paxton’s lead attorney, tried proving Mr. Paxton paid for his home renovations. But he wired $121,617 to an entity named Cupertino Builders the day after whistleblowers in his office met with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which by then had told the Attorney General Office’s human-resources department about it. This payment was also made months after the work was done: How many builders wait that long to bill a job? Cupertino Builders didn’t even exist when Mr. Paxton wired it money: It filed organization papers three weeks later with state officials. Its manager, Mr. Paul’s buddy, has served time for fraud.

When the House took up impeachment, Mr. Paxton complained he wasn’t allowed to present evidence or testify. But that’s how the Texas impeachment processes work: The House serves as a grand jury, then the Senate holds the trial.

And for all his complaints, Mr. Paxton has since tried to limit the introduction of evidence in the Senate trial. Only two senators supported that push, one of them Mr. Paxton’s wife. Mr. Paxton also refuses to testify.

Some of the Senate trial’s more dramatic moments will likely be testimony from the Paxton whistleblowers—eight respected conservative lawyers, Federalist Society members, and the attorney general’s handpicked top staffers. They risked their careers and reputations to take on a powerful boss they allege was violating the laws he had sworn to uphold.

When he won his third term as attorney general last fall, Mr. Paxton said, “The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” Maybe, but they might have been simply premature.

Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
Title: Soft Coup 4.0: Impeachment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2024, 05:55:14 PM
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1757060091625296325