Nancy Pelosi Announces Impeachment Inquiry

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,899
Impeachment Inquiry Tests Ties Between Barr and Trump (NY Times)

I'm not sure how much there really is to this top of the page article in the NY Times suggesting fraying of ties between Trump and Barr, but given that Trump can't keep his eyes away from the paper he hates, he'll see it and it will probably seed more suspicion between the two. If Barr ever broke from Trump...

Rather than publicly join the fight against House Democrats pursuing the president, Mr. Barr has remained out of the fray, resisting requests by intermediaries from Mr. Trump to go before the cameras to say no crime had been committed. While Mr. Barr exonerated the president in the spring at the end of the Russia investigation, he has been more reticent in the current matter.

The reluctance hints at a new distance between the two men, according to people who have spoken with them. Mr. Trump, angry with his coverage, is aggravated with Mr. Barr for urging him to release a reconstructed transcript of the telephone call with Ukraine’s president at the center of the impeachment drive. For his part, Mr. Barr was bothered that Mr. Trump on that call lumped him together with Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s private lawyer, like interchangeable parts of his personal defense team.
 

canbelto

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,334
Well if Barr doesn't work out Jeff Sessions is begging to get back into Trump's good graces ...
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,958

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,595
I turned on the t.v. to CNN and someone whose title was former trump transition member or something like (I didn't look fast enough to catch his name) that was talking about Mulvaney. He said Mick offered him a job and he was glad he didn't take it and that he's sorry he (Mick) got caught up in this. And Mick, if you're watching, resign and do something else with your life. (<approximately, but he did tell him to resign).
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,170
I turned on the t.v. to CNN and someone whose title was former trump transition member or something like (I didn't look fast enough to catch his name) that was talking about Mulvaney. He said Mick offered him a job and he was glad he didn't take it and that he's sorry he (Mick) got caught up in this. And Mick, if you're watching, resign and do something else with your life. (<approximately, but he did tell him to resign).
Resigning is wrong. They always forget about 25th amendment removal
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,811
CNN is reporting that Mick Mulvaney decided not to testify and is claiming "absolute immunity". I get why the House doesn't want to go to court. At the same time, I think someone needs to do something about these made-up and overly broad immunity claims (and no, I don't think adding obstruction of Congress charges is "doing something about it" because I don't have enough faith that it'll amount to anything).
 

Prancer

Needs More Sleep
Staff member
Messages
48,683
But his perfect transcript!

CNN is reporting that Mick Mulvaney decided not to testify and is claiming "absolute immunity". I get why the House doesn't want to go to court. At the same time, I think someone needs to do something about these made-up and overly broad immunity claims (and no, I don't think adding obstruction of Congress charges is "doing something about it" because I don't have enough faith that it'll amount to anything).
I think Mulvaney has a pretty good case for immunity, unlike many of the others.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,656
I think Mulvaney has a pretty good case for immunity, unlike many of the others.
I don't know about that. If he were only the Acting Chief of Staff, I would agree with you. He is, however, also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I can quite see how a court might hold that executive privilege does not extend to someone who is both a Cabinet member and a non-Cabinet Presidential advisor.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,112
There’s no such thing as “absolute immunity.”
I think people are confusing immunity with privilege. There are legitimate cases where a president could claim executive privilege for conversations with a chief of staff. It can’t be used to shield illegal behaviour. Something the Trump admin doesn’t seem to realize.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Three A's, T&M, P&C
Messages
48,380
Republicans have submitted to the committee a list of witnesses for the impeachment inquiry. It includes the Whistle blower and Hunter Biden. Needless to say the committee will reject the whistle blower to protect his or her identity. Why should Hunter Biden be dragged into this though? The issue is whether Trump asked Ukraine a favor in exchange for military aid.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,170
Republicans have submitted to the committee a list of witnesses for the impeachment inquiry. It includes the Whistle blower and Hunter Biden. Needless to say the committee will reject the whistle blower to protect his or her identity. Why should Hunter Biden be dragged into this though? The issue is whether Trump asked Ukraine a favor in exchange for military aid.
But why should Trumps defense be disallowed? I mean In legal system irrelevant defenses are disallowed all the time but the transcript says he was thinking about Biden’s so why not allow him his defense?
 

Prancer

Needs More Sleep
Staff member
Messages
48,683
But why should Trumps defense be disallowed? I mean In legal system irrelevant defenses are disallowed all the time but the transcript says he was thinking about Biden’s so why not allow him his defense?
In what way is thinking about the Bidens a defense?
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,170
In what way is thinking about the Bidens a defense?
The belief I just heard was that American aid supposed to go to fight Russia was going to Burisma and some of that money was going to the Biden’s because Hunter was employed by Burisma!! So you have to go into an area that is totally ridiculous by most standards but is absolute reality to Trump
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,112
Republicans have submitted to the committee a list of witnesses for the impeachment inquiry. It includes the Whistle blower and Hunter Biden. Needless to say the committee will reject the whistle blower to protect his or her identity. Why should Hunter Biden be dragged into this though? The issue is whether Trump asked Ukraine a favor in exchange for military aid.
This is the Republicans’ way of being able to say “See, they won’t let us call our witnesses. It is all a sham.”
 

Sparks

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,157
If House Republicans think it’s fair game to put Hunter Biden under oath in a public hearing, I’m sure they have no objection to doing the same to Jared, Ivanka, and Don Jr.
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,112
If House Republicans think it’s fair game to put Hunter Biden under oath in a public hearing, I’m sure they have no objection to doing the same to Jared, Ivanka, and Don Jr.
I wonder if Hunter would be willing to go? If the agreement was the Trump kids go first?
 

Prancer

Needs More Sleep
Staff member
Messages
48,683
The belief I just heard was that American aid supposed to go to fight Russia was going to Burisma and some of that money was going to the Biden’s because Hunter was employed by Burisma!! So you have to go into an area that is totally ridiculous by most standards but is absolute reality to Trump
If anyone at all on Trump's team had proof of this, do you think they would be wasting their time calling Hunter Biden to testify?

If Trump's concern is corruption in the Ukraine government (as in, money intended for fighting Russia would be diverted to Burisma), then the issue is the Ukrainian government, not Hunter Biden. Let's say this entire conspiracy theory were true; Hunter Biden would be a potential recipient of the diverted money--but so would everyone on the board of Burisma who wasn't named Hunter Biden. If Trump's concern was that the funds would be diverted, the logical thing for him to have said to Zelensky is "I'm concered that this money is not going to go where it is supposed to and I need some evidence from you that all of the money we send is going be spent on defense and only defense."

I think this would be reasonable and understandable, if still probably wrong for him to do since Congress had already authorized the money and it's Congress's role to do so, not Trump's. And why not say it publicly, if that's the issue? It's not like discreet diplomacy is his style.

Instead, Trump asked for a favor in a private conversation and his only reason for asking was the Bidens.

Gimme a break. That turkey don't fly.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,170
If anyone at all on Trump's team had proof of this, do you think they would be wasting their time calling Hunter Biden to testify?

If Trump's concern is corruption in the Ukraine government (as in, money intended for fighting Russia would be diverted to Burisma), then the issue is the Ukrainian government, not Hunter Biden. Let's say this entire conspiracy theory were true; Hunter Biden would be a potential recipient of the diverted money--but so would everyone on the board of Burisma who wasn't named Hunter Biden. If Trump's concern was that the funds would be diverted, the logical thing for him to have said to Zelensky is "I'm concered that this money is not going to go where it is supposed to and I need some evidence from you that all of the money we send is going be spent on defense and only defense."

I think this would be reasonable and understandable, if still probably wrong for him to do since Congress had already authorized the money and it's Congress's role to do so, not Trump's. And why not say it publicly, if that's the issue? It's not like discreet diplomacy is his style.

Instead, Trump asked for a favor in a private conversation and his only reason for asking was the Bidens.

Gimme a break. That turkey don't fly.
The aid to Ukraine is not unconditional. It is only delivered when department of defense says Ukraine is fighting corruption. And maybe state department too. Congress set up a system where Ukraine was not entitled to the money But had to earn it. Trump was like “I think lots of the money is going to Biden’s. President zelensky you must investigate Burisma and Biden’s and them getting money from Burisma or there is no money at all” and then there was none briefly. The thing i See most frequently is people saying because congress approves the money ukraine gets the money. That’s not correct. Congress authorized executive branch to judge Ukraine
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
30,221
It is only delivered when department of defense says Ukraine is fighting corruption.
And there was a process in place for Ukraine to prove they were fighting corruption. They met the conditions to get that aide and had already proved they were fighting corruption.

Trump was completely out of line to stop it and impose other conditions that were just in his own mind and in his own interest. He was stamping all over the process as if the President of the US is a King. Which he is not.
 

Prancer

Needs More Sleep
Staff member
Messages
48,683
Trump was like “I think lots of the money is going to Biden’s. President zelensky you must investigate Burisma and Biden’s and them getting money from Burisma or there is no money at all” and then there was none briefly. The thing i See most frequently is people saying because congress approves the money ukraine gets the money. That’s not correct. Congress authorized executive branch to judge Ukraine
Only Trump wasn't like that. We've all read the perfect transcript and know exactly what he said, which bears pretty much no resemblance at all to your attempt at rationalizing.

Again, if actual corruption was the issue, then the issue would not have been the Bidens, even if he thought the Bidens were corrupt. Because it would have to be the government that is corrupt, and the government that would be passing on the aid money--which would have to happen in the future and not in the past, as the aid money hadn't been handed over. And the transcript of the perfect phone call clearly says that Trump wanted Zelensky to open an investigation into the past about the Bidens.

I just love this particular approach--what Trump did was wrong, but he didn't INTEND to do wrong, so it's all good.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,170
And there was a process in place for Ukraine to prove they were fighting corruption. They met the conditions to get that aide and had already proved they were fighting corruption.

Trump was completely out of line to stop it and impose other conditions that were just in his own mind and in his own interest. He was stamping all over the process as if the President of the US is a King. Which he is not.
This was a potential route for impeachment too! That because US law demands Ukraine fight corruption but set up a system where Ukraine was certified by DoD trump went too far to circumvent that system and that’s what’s impeachable
Only Trump wasn't like that. We've all read the perfect transcript and know exactly what he said, which bears pretty much no resemblance at all to your attempt at rationalizing.

Again, if actual corruption was the issue, then the issue would not have been the Bidens, even if he thought the Bidens were corrupt. Because it would have to be the government that is corrupt, and the government that would be passing on the aid money--which would have to happen in the future and not in the past, as the aid money hadn't been handed over. And the transcript of the perfect phone call clearly says that Trump wanted Zelensky to open an investigation into the past about the Bidens.

I just love this particular approach--what Trump did was wrong, but he didn't INTEND to do wrong, so it's all good.
There is going to be a defense At the trial. People can’t even talk about it? lol. And the defense doesn’t have to make sense or be in line with past statements. Of course aid in the future would be held up because of what happened in the past. That Burisma was giving money to Biden’s. The investigation into Burisma was what the phone call was partly about. That was the dormant investigation trump wanted restarted as well as new ones into bidens.

but then I always wonder why do republicans want to do this rather than just impeach and remove trump and make pence president. What’s the problem with that? Why make up phony nonsense defenses? Like anyone would really oppose making Pence president if they are trump voters! I’d like and can’t find anywhere any proof a trump voter wouldn’t like a pence presidency
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,595
This is the Republicans’ way of being able to say “See, they won’t let us call our witnesses. It is all a sham.”
It's just another distraction because they can't defend trump. So are all the people who didn't show up last week. If there was anything positive anyone could say for trump, they'd be begging to talk. They'd be on all the news programs saying they want to testify. Pathetic (I keep wanting to say pitiful, but I have no pity for them).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 7, Guests: 32)

Top