Impeachment, Indictment, 25th Amendment 4

Lots of dropping shoes--er, documents and witnesses--Senate only has to ask for them:

American Oversight @weareoversight | 12:31 AM · Dec 21, 2019

NEW: We just received (Dept of Defense records relating to the Trump administration's withholding of aid to Ukraine -- including an email from Secretary Esper asking about the funding. https://americanoversight.org/document/dod-senior-officials-emails-containing-te...
Image ( https://twitter.com/weareoversight/status/1208258763641311232 )

There are only five pages in this production—and they're heavily redacted—but like the State Department records we obtained in late November, these records were also not released to Congress during the House impeachment inquiry.

Despite the redactions, when placed against the publicly-known timeline of the Ukraine events, these emails show top DOD and OMB officials taking personal interest in the aid suspension issue at key moments.

Christopher Miller @ChristopherJM | 10:27 AM · Dec 21, 2019:

New documents obtained by @publicintegrity show that *a little more than an hour* after Trump spoke to Zelensky by phone on July 25, Trump officials were already working to freeze hundreds of millions in security assistance for Ukraine.
Image ( https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1208408661510496256/photo/1 )

Live Blog: Digging into the #UkraineDocs
Zachary Fryer-Biggs | December 21, 2019

Updates on What We’re Finding

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/digging-ukrainedocs-omb-foia/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump Administration officials worried Ukraine aid halt violated spending law
R. Jeffrey Smith | December 21, 2019

But key details of what they said to one another are again blacked out in documents released to the Center for Public Integrity under court order...

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/trump-administration-officials-wor...

‘I won’t be reading ET again!’: Trump attacks Christian magazine for backing impeachment then misspells its name during wild early morning rant (The Independent)

Donald Trump has launched an angry broadside against a Christian magazine which endorsed his impeachment, while apparently misspelling its initials and proclaiming: “I won’t be reading ET again!”.

Evangelical publication Christianity Today, founded by Billy Graham and widely known as CT, had called for him to be removed from office for acting in a “profoundly immoral” manner.

It was a serious blow for the president, who counts evangelical voters among his support base.

And amid an early-morning flurry of tweets just days after he became the third president in US history to be impeached, the Republican turned his sights on the magazine, falsely describing it as “far left”...

Franklin Graham just spent evening with Pences.
Billy Graham's granddaughter applauded Christian Today, but Franklin did not.

ETA
Neither did Ralph Reed, executive director of Christian Coalition during the 1990s --more proof for the old maxim, "Nobody's reputation survives association with Trump."

First Post Impeachment Poll Shows Majority of Voters Approve
By 52% to 43%

Support for impeachment breaks sharply among party lines. Among Democrats, 85 percent approve of the House’s action, and only 12 percent disapprove. Approval among Republicans is only 16 percent, compared with 81 percent who disapprove.

Among independents, 48 percent approve of the House passing articles of impeachment and 41 percent disapprove.

Further, 54% say the Senate should call witnesses

. . .“because some White House staff refused to testify” during the House’s impeachment inquiry

to 27% who do not.

The outlook for 2020 among those polled?

In the poll, 43 percent of voters say they are more likely to vote for a member of Congress who supported impeachment, while 34 percent say they are less likely.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/20/poll-trump-impeachment-088812

All this is good news for Democrats (and the Democratic presidential nominee) seeking House and Senate seats in 2020, especially in those districts that went for Trump but have Dem reps in the House. Approval by Independents moved to the more positive, and the strength of overall approval for House members who supported impeachment also favors them. Independent voters will be very important in next year's election since they outnumber voters who identify with either major party.

Heidi Przybyla @HeidiNBC | 10:17 AM · Dec 22, 2019:
https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1208768519418056706

2 DAYS -- FIRSTHAND FACTS:

JULY 25
--Trump asks Zelensky to investigate “Crowdstrike” & “Biden’s son”
--90 minutes later: White House tells Pentagon to suspend all military aid.

JULY 26:
--Trump asks Sondland on cell: “So he’s going to do the investigation?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Officials Discussed Hold on Ukraine Aid After Trump Spoke With Country’s Leader
Edward Wong | Dec. 21, 2019. Updated Dec. 22, 2019, 12:41 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — About 90 minutes after President Trump held a controversial telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in July, the White House budget office ordered the Pentagon to suspend all military aid that Congress had allocated to Ukraine, according to emails released by the Pentagon late Friday.

A budget official, Michael Duffey, also told the Pentagon to keep quiet about the aid freeze because of the “sensitive nature of the request,” according to a message dated July 25.

An earlier email that Mr. Duffey sent to the Pentagon comptroller suggested that Mr. Trump began asking aides about $250 million in military aid set aside for Ukraine after noticing a June 19 article about it in the Washington Examiner...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/us/politics/white-house-pentagon-ukraine-aid....

Nancy Pelosi's stupidity---the "gift" that keeps on "giving"! The Democrat party leadership's blunders concerning their conspiracies to get, to undermine, Donald Trump and his presidency continue.

If this were not such a very grave matter they've undertaken, it would be pathetically hilarious. But it is serious and insanely foolish.

__________________________________

(Note: Many U.S. readers may miss some of the significance of the following; so I've added some empahsis via bold-face or italics or both bold-face and italics ))

(From Real Clear Politics)

'Impeachment Takes a Holiday' -- Starring Nancy Pelosi
COMMENTARY | By Frank Miele | December 23, 2019


(Source/credit: AP Photo: J. Scott Applewhite)

______________________________

… ...

… “Of course, we shouldn’t have been surprised by the delay. Turns out that during the urgent mission to save the nation from the dire threat of Trump’s wicked sense of humor, there had also been time for a week-long Thanksgiving break as well. Maybe Nancy thought the Donald would retreat to Mar-a-Lago with his tail between his legs and never come back. She must have been very disappointed. But maybe she thinks Trump didn’t really return at all. Didn’t she call the president an imposter? Or is that just another debunked conspiracy theory?

Doesn’t matter. If anything, Pelosi’s stated reason for refusing to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate on a timely basis was even more ludicrous than my 'National Lampoon' scenario. The bottom line is that in trying to circumvent the constitutional role of the Senate and trying to delegitimize its leader, she has entered territory that is radical even for a 'rogue' (her word again) political party.

“ 'We are not sending it ... because it is difficult to determine who the managers would be until we see the arena in which we will be participating,' Pelosi said on the night when the articles were passed on a strictly partisan vote. Of course, she knew the arena because it is spelled out in the Constitution. (It’s the Senate, stupid!) And though Pelosi had a moment of clarity when she acknowledged, 'It is up to the Senate to say what their rules will be,' she did everything in her power to shame, cajole and extort McConnell into running the trial according to the House’s rules — namely, that Trump gets no due process and the coddled whistleblower shall not be named.

“Unbelievably, Pelosi told the truth the following morning when she admitted the entirely partisan reason why she is not transmitting the impeachment to the Senate: 'Just to get this off the table right away, (that is, 'because' or 'since' ) if we impeach the president immediately, everybody moves on to the next thing.'

“D’oh! You already did impeach the president, Madam Speaker. And since when did 'moving on to the next thing' become a problem? Are you admitting that the Democratic House is really just an obstructionist tool of 'the Resistance'?

“Trump’s subsequent summation on Twitter was concise and on point.

“ 'So after the Democrats gave me no Due Process in the House, no lawyers, no witnesses, no nothing, they now want to tell the Senate how to run their trial. Actually, they have zero proof of anything, they will never even show up. They want out. I want an immediate trial!'

“Pelosi made one other mistake in her political gambit. In her zeal to attack McConnell, she apparently forgot the Constitution mandates that the Senate trial of a president shall be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. So she’s also thumbing her nose at John Roberts by suggesting he’s unable or unwilling to run a fair trial. Based on what?

“This is no surprise. There is no such thing as 'obstruction of Congress' as a high crime — or even a low crime. Obstructing Congress is what all presidents do when they think Congress is wrong. It’s called the balance of power. The arbiter of that never-ending battle between the executive and legislative branches is the judiciary. Yet, as I mentioned at the outset, the House Democrats refused to seek court guidance on how to proceed when President Trump invoked executive privilege to prevent the delivery of documents and testimony to the Congress. That’s because the Supreme Court has long upheld that the executive branch does not automatically have to submit to congressional subpoenas or demands.

“If Pelosi took Trump to court, she would very likely lose, and then be left with nothing but her stupid 'abuse of power' complaint against Trump when clearly it is Pelosi and the House Democrats who have abused their power time and again.” ...

... ...

In the meantime, The Don's impeachment defense strategy for upcoming Senate trial apparently is to pretend it didn't really happen! Now, that's the choice of "stable genius" if I ever heard one! HAHAHAHA!

Better yet, Trump defenders are sticking to their self-created fantasy that impeachment is a criminal trial as the action now turns to the Senate. That should fly like a Boeing 737 Max!

While the best and brightest Republicans play "Let's Pretend," Democrats are following the paper trail of e-mails detailing the chronology of the president's acts in re his attempt to foment corruption in Ukraine instead of fighting it. And the documentary evidence is damning. There's blood in the water!
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/us/politics/white-house-pentagon-ukraine-aid....
and
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475704-dem-senator-requests-legal-opinion-on...

Where stand the people in all this?

American voters, to explode a major Republican lying meme during House Impeachment hearings HAVE been paying attention to Trump's corruption.

Trump’s impeachment was a high-penetrating event among voters, with 58 percent saying they had seen, read or heard “a lot” about it. That salience matches the share measured for the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, and financier Jeffrey Epstein’s death at the time in August.

And we, the people, according to the latest Morning Consult poll, have demands of our own that are BAD news for Trump and his cult followers. We side with the Dems and Sen. Schumer, which is GOOD news for American democracy.

51% approve of the Senate removing Trump from office and 52% support the House impeaching him.

https://morningconsult.com/2019/12/20/most-voters-want-senate-to-call-more-witne...

54% said the Senate should call additional witnesses, a question that divides GOP voters but is backed by Independents and Democrats. That's 66% of Dems, Yea; 51% of Indies, Yea; and 43% of Repubs Yea to 39% Nay who want to stick their fingers in their ears instead of hearing fact witnesses, effectively splitting the Repub voters, but giving the win to those who want to start facing facts.

A Christmas Miracle or a Republican War on Christmas? You be the judge.

Conservative paper National Review calls for Trump's removal:

Four Tests for Impeachment
Ramesh Ponnuru | December 19, 2019

Advocates of a president’s removal from office by Congress should have to climb over four walls to reach their objective. First, they should have to show that the facts they allege are true. Second, they should show that the fact pattern amounts to an abuse of power or dereliction of duty by the president. Third, they should show that this abuse or dereliction is impeachable. And fourth, they should show that it is prudent for Congress to remove the president for this impeachable offense: that it would produce more good than evil.

If the advocates can scale all four walls, then a majority of the House and a supermajority of the Senate ought to remove the president. If any of the obstacles proves insurmountable, the president should be allowed to serve out his term in office.

...Whether Trump should be removed from office over the objections of nearly half the country is not an important question. He can’t be. There are better questions. Would it be good for the country if a large majority of Americans were to be persuaded that it is unacceptable for a president to use his office to encourage foreign governments to investigate his political opponents? Assuming that the necessary level of support to remove a president from office for that offense will not be reached, should we prefer that more elected officials go on record that it is unacceptable — or that fewer do?

If you have read this far, you know my answer to these questions. The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal to protect us from officials, including presidents, who are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the common good that government is supposed to serve and their own narrow interests. Though he has done some good things in office, Trump is just such a president. Congress should act accordingly.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/12/31/four-tests-for-impeachment/

>9 margd: I saw that too. Was impressed they published it; but NR introduced it as an opinion that differed from the editorial board and sponsored a rebuttal. Not a particularly robust rebuttal, in my opinion.

>10 2wonderY: Can't find rebuttal. Do you have link?

Here it is:

written by Michael Brendan Dougherty
The Prudential Case against Impeachment

Modern presidents have routinely launched the United States into belligerency with other nations without congressional approval. Barack Obama had already put special forces into Syria before he asked Congress to approve of a more wide-ranging mission there. Congress refused to vote on it, given its unpopularity. The mission crept on anyway. If you want to go back much further, every American president who is connected to the Vietnam War must answer for grave lies to the American public, relating both to the cause of the war, its conclusion, and its scope.

You may dismiss all this as “whataboutism” – a recently coined term meant to name an evasive rhetorical technique. But I think Socrates was the first whataboutist philosopher, and he brought up his counterexamples in order to probe our standards for real coherence.

Would it be good for the country to impeach Trump for his Ukraine phone call, having not impeached his recent predecessors for graver offenses? If raising the standards means the standards would be kept there, perhaps yes. I believe Ramesh Ponnuru would keep the standards there. Would others? I also suspect that while Ponnuru might quibble with some of my examples of presidential abuses before, he generally agrees that modern presidents have been getting away with impeachable offenses.

My next question: Why isn’t Trump getting away with his? I suspect the reason is similar to the reason that Andrew Johnson was impeached. Clinton too. Offenses to the Constitution are routinely tolerated in presidents, but Trump’s Democratic opponents and Republican critics find themselves literally disgusted by him. I cannot prove, but I suspect, that it is this more visceral disgust — one that predated the release of the rough transcript of the Ukraine phone call — that is driving impeachment. Finding a tax-evasion charge on Al Capone may be expedient for imprisoning him. But finding a technically abusive request that was not carried out in order to effect the already desired impeachment is something less than constitutional hygiene.

The Republican talking point in defense of the president — you always wanted to impeach him, you only just now found your excuse — has some purchase. It’s not strictly logical. But neither has been the American practice for impeaching presidents. If I had some sense that the political effect was to restore constitutional good order, I would happily support impeachment. But the political effect of impeachment seems to me to be aimed at restoring a Washington consensus way of doing things, a Washington culture, that has been indefensible for decades. That’s a project unworthy of support, one that is politically unwise to pursue.

This is the consensus and culture that Trump was elected to disrupt and destroy. I think many of his supporters acknowledge freely he’s not quite the perfect man for the job. And so my own political judgement is that the best course was for Congress to inquire about, investigate, and publicize his misdeeds — and thereby encourage Trump’s challengers to campaign on them in the next presidential election.

>8 Limelite:

"In the meantime, The Don's impeachment defense strategy for upcoming Senate trial apparently is to pretend it didn't really happen! Now, that's the choice of "stable genius" if I ever heard one! HAHAHAHA!"

In fact, it's the frequent, indeed, usual, course of defendants brought to answer for acts they never committed. These defendants always (and rightly) reply: "Prove it. My plea is 'not guilty.' Now you and your prosecutors bring the proof that I have done what you allege."

That's all a defendant need do. Trump doesn't have to prove himself innocent, his accusers bear the burden of proving him guilty.

Or are Democrats also dispensing with that, too?!

>12 2wonderY: A mis-step by our founders, so afraid of monarchy, who yet made it exceedingly difficult to replace the head of state/executive branch?
A vote of non-confidence in parliament or even by a PM's party would be enough to bring about a ruling party/PM's replacement in 4-6 weeks.
(I remember American friends' amazement years ago when Cdn PM Joe Clark's government fell and was replaced in the same time span as the NH primary. )

>13 proximity1:

But. . .but. . .but Trump is the one who first called for more witnesses at his trial. Oh ye of little recall, how you like to forget the facts and rewrite history when it suits your ideological ambition. He was found guilty. He's impeached. He hasn't been removed from office, that's what the trial determines -- if his impeachment can override partisanship is what the stage is set to test.

What Republicans didn't anticipate is that Democrats took him up on his offer. Just like Pelosi said, Trump would impeach himself. He did. Only the stubbornly stupid rats haven't yet fled the sinking ship that is The Don, and now they've been forced to ride the wreckage all the way to the bottom.

Since Republicans have no sense of duty to the Constitution, only to their cult leader, America expects a Soviet Era show trial. Republican senators are in the untenable position between a rock and a hard place -- whether to betray their loyalty to Trump and preserve democracy, or betray their oaths and the country in order to retain political power. There's little mystery or suspense within the American people over what the corrupt GOP will choose to betray.

Now that Trump's working so hard to turn his senate trial into a TV reality show because it finally dawned on his that witnesses will only hurt him, I have no doubt that Dems will do everything in their power to make that ambition come true, too, in a way most favorable to the facts and their fulfillment of their duty to the Constitution. Nothing could please the mouth-breathing masses like a sequel to the Republican House Impeachment Hearing shit show will. Give them their bread and circuses and the outcome will be the same as it was in Rome. The fall of the evil empire.

Either way -- witnesses or no -- the Loser-in-Chief will lose. But Republican senators will lose if they choose wrongly. I bet they do as there isn't a molecule of integrity or desire for truth in any of them.

Merry Christmas.

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vVp5AGte_4Q

Christianity Today again slams Trump, raises issue of 'unconditional loyalty' (Channel News Asia)

Christianity Today, the magazine founded by the late Reverend Billy Graham, renewed its criticism of President Donald Trump in a new editorial that cited his "misuses of power" and asked fellow Christians to examine their loyalty to him, days after a controversial editorial that called for his impeachment...

Evangelicals have been a bedrock of support for the Republican president, and the magazine noted in its new editorial, published Sunday (Dec 22), that Trump "has done a lot of good for causes we all care about".

But the magazine's president, Timothy Dalrymple, wrote in the editorial, headlined The Flag In The Whirlwind, that evangelicals' embrace of Trump means being tied to his "rampant immorality, greed, and corruption; his divisiveness and race-baiting; his cruelty and hostility to immigrants and refugees".

"With profound love and respect," Dalrymple said, "we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether they have given to Caesar what belongs only to God: Their unconditional loyalty"...

Merry Christmas.

How can GOPers connect the dots that exist when they refuse to
open their eyes? Blind loyalty to a cult leader is turning the
Congress into a missing link in the governmental structure the
Founders designed.

@Molly3028
How can Democrats connect the dots that exist when they refuse to open their eyes?

From a left-leaning publication, the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/17/why-these-past-few-weeks-have...

PS: the Trump supporters I talk to are happy with what our President is doing, though don't always agree with his methods. That is not indicative of cult followers.

>19 fuzzi:

When push comes to shove, white-identity messages and moolah
override any other considerations when it comes to the Trump
supporters' perceptions about his accomplishments. The GOP
has been on a decade-long suicide mission. The Trump era is the
latest episode in that continuum.

Continuing the discourse on the fact that some Christians are supporting Trump, with an opinion piece from the Guardian...

The rise of Christian-nativist populists: a troubling sign of things to come

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” These words, written by Saint Paul 2,000 years ago, are central to the Christian faith. They speak of a vocation for the universal and point to an ethic of social justice and solidarity. The Christian tradition’s account of the humble circumstances of the birth of Jesus, represented in the nativity scene, is in the same spirit, identifying Christ with the marginal, the maligned and the poor.

It has therefore, for many Christians, been depressing to witness the faith of their churches being used to justify the abandonment of such principles in Europe, Donald Trump’s America and beyond...

The battle to defend the rights and human dignity of all, irrespective of gender, race or sexuality, is having to be fought all over again. But the theological roots of that liberal vision in a Pauline notion of universality – “all are one in Christ” – is rarely examined by progressives. In an era when Christian ethics are being so brazenly twisted to serve nativism and attacks on minorities, that could be a mistake...

However, Democrat candidates have begun to play this game on their own terms. Elizabeth Warren, the senator for Massachusetts, has frequently referenced the gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus talks of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and caring for the sick. Pete Buttigieg, the gay Christian mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has explicitly attacked the Republican party’s taste for “cloaking itself in the language of religion”. Mr Buttigieg told an American magazine: “For a party that associates itself with Christianity to say that it is OK to suggest that God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that party has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.” Last week the influential US evangelical publication Christianity Today called for Mr Trump to “be removed from office”.

Straws in the wind? For both secular liberals and Christians, there are lessons to be drawn from what might be seen as a prophetic alliance between Pope Francis and Greta Thunberg on the most urgent issue facing the world: the climate emergency. When Time magazine made Ms Thunberg its person of the year, the Vatican was quick to celebrate her as “a witness to what the church teaches on the care of the environment and the care of the person”.

The pope has identified the protection of the Amazon rainforest, where this year the greatest levels of deforestation for a decade were recorded, as an environmental priority. But the culture wars being fought in the public square – which have seen Ms Thunberg become a target – are also being played out within the Christian churches. A three-week Rome synod on the Amazon in October was overshadowed by conservative criticism of the Pope’s decision to invite native peoples and welcome their religious symbols. Liberal democracies rightly prize the separation of church and state which emerged following the Enlightenment. But as the reactionary right denigrates ideas of human dignity and equality that can be traced back to the first formulations of early Christianity, liberals of goodwill need to unite across the religious/secular divide in 2020.

>15 Limelite:

"He was found guilty. He's impeached. He hasn't been removed from office, that's what the trial determines -- if his impeachment can override partisanship is what the stage is set to test."

He is "impeached"--that is, charges, allegations, of wrong-doing have been set out.

"Found guilty"? No. That's another of your lies.

The Senate tries the case of impeachment; the Senate renders the verdict in cases of impeachment, not the majority party in the House, not the news-media, not Prof. Tribe and not you. The Senate. Until it passes its judgment on the impeachment allegations, the person impeached remains impeached BUT NOT convicted of any wrong-doing. You and Nancy Pelosi won't be allowed by the U.S. electorate to get away with this, "We'll impeach Trump & then leave him in limbo, not convicted, of course, but our message to the public shall be implied: "we don't have to allow him a trial on the charges. We can just leave things as they are: he's now 'tainted' by our impeachment of him and we shall not allow a trial where he'd be found " 'not guilty.' "

But the Constitution has no such provision. Every impeachment requires a Senate trial and judgment. To do otherwise is tantamount to denying an accused his right to face his accusers, his right to "his day in court," his right to the presumption of innocence until proven and judged guilty as charged.

Democrats came serially to the House floor's podium and repeated sanctimoniously, with reference only to President Trump, that "no one is above the law."

In attempting this transparent dodge of the law and the Constitution, they're attempting to do just that: place themselves "above the law" since only in that way can they "get Trump."

The public already see through this and are disgusted by it.

Support for the act of impeachment now, since its having been voted, among has fallen among Democrats from the 90-percentages to the 70s.

>22 proximity1: That's another of your lies

Lies? Not "things I disagree with", "things which are open to different interpretations", "differences of understanding", "misunderstandings", "misapprehensions", "misinterpretations"? Not even "mistakes", "errors"?

Trump is impeached. Up to Senate whether to remove him. No matter what Putin and his orange puppet say.

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | Dec 25, 2019
Art. I, Sec.2, Cl.5 of the Constitution gives the House the “sole Power of Impeachment,” and House Rules Ch. 27, Sec.8, expressly states: “The respondent in an impeachment proceeding IS IMPEACHED by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment." Q.E.D.

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | Dec 24, 2019
...@SpeakerPelosi is doing nothing to stop the Senate from discharging its duty. It’s the Senate’s own rules that say no trial can begin till the House sends it the articles of impeachment. And it’s McConnell who says he’ll violate his oath.

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw | Dec 25, 2019
2020 differs from 2016: Now Trump, as the sitting president, is openly & covertly using the powers of office, and our tax money, to pressure some foreign allies, and invite some foreign enemies, to attack our voting process to rig his re-election. And now we’ve all been warned.

>24 margd:

Laurence Tribe tribelaw | Dec 25, 2019
Art. I, Sec.2, Cl.5 of the Constitution gives the House the “sole Power of Impeachment,” and House Rules Ch. 27, Sec.8, expressly states: “The respondent in an impeachment proceeding IS IMPEACHED by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment." Q.E.D.

Laurence Tribe tribelaw | Dec 24, 2019
...@SpeakerPelosi is doing nothing to stop the Senate from discharging its duty. It’s the Senate’s own rules that say no trial can begin till the House sends it the articles of impeachment. And it’s McConnell who says he’ll violate his oath.

LOL! Memo to Margd:

Tell your favorite law professor to tell that to your heroine, the incompetent moron, Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

______________________________________

See, below, already pointed out in >7 proximity1:. Do try to keep up. LOL!

“Unbelievably, Pelosi told the truth the following morning when she admitted the entirely partisan reason why she is not transmitting the impeachment to the Senate: 'Just to get this off the table right away, (that is, 'because' or 'since' ) if we impeach the president immediately, everybody moves on to the next thing.'

“D’oh! You already did impeach the president, Madam Speaker. And since when did 'moving on to the next thing' become a problem? Are you admitting that the Democratic House is really just an obstructionist tool of 'the Resistance'?

Public support for Trump conviction at all-time high, poll finds (The Independent)

Public support for Donald Trump’​s removal from office is the highest it has ever been, according to a new poll.

Fifty-five per cent of those asked said they were in favour of the US president’s conviction by the Senate, a figure which has shot up from 48 per cent the week before.

Meanwhile, the number of people against Mr Trump’s removal has dropped to an all-time low...

>23 John5918: being impeached is not being found "guilty" as per US law.

So, saying that Trump has been found guilty is an untruth, a lie, just as saying a green light is red.

>27 fuzzi:

If a colour blind person says a green light is red, are they lying or are they speaking about things as they perceive them? If a train driver passes a red signal because she has accidentally confused it with the green signal on the parallel line, but claims her signal was green, is she lying, or is she mistaken? If I just catch a glimpse out of the corner of my eye and I say the light is green but actually it is red and what I have seen is the green neon advertising sign next to it, am I lying, or am I simply confused? The word "lying" implies a deliberate falsehood, not simply a falsehood. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt even if I think they are mistaken.

>27 fuzzi:

For informed discussion, this place makes a fucking nursery school look highly sophisticated.

IMPEACH

verb: impeach; 3rd person present: impeaches; past tense: impeached; past participle: impeached; gerund or present participle: impeaching

call into question the integrity or validity of (a practice).
"there is no basis to Searle's motion to impeach the verdict"

Similar:
challenge
question
call into question
cast doubt on
raise doubts about

Opposite:
confirm

British--charge with treason or another crime against the state.
US--charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.
"the governor served only one year before being impeached and convicted for fiscal fraud"

So: margd can look up and cite terms from a dictionary;but she can't reason effectively with those terms. And that is why >30 margd: is another example of the damn fool nursery-school atmosphere of these discussion fora.

The Constitution only provides for an "impeachment"-- "challenge", "question",
"call into question", "cast doubt on", "raise doubts about" -- in the case of a president of the United States -- in matters concerning treason, bribery and other high crimes or misdemeanors.

Having no evidence of any such in the case of President Trump, Speaker Pelosi and all but two or three of her Cult of Democrats have chosen to ignore the Constitution and simply invent bogus charges against Trump. These amount, in essence, to Trump's having a different view of the things in which consist the "official interests of the United States" from the view of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. They've taken it upon themselves to confine the president to those acts and policies which conform to their own partisan definitions.

Never before has any House of Representatives majority determined to impeach a president for his failing to conform to the opposition-party's view of what are in "the best interests of the United States." A new precedent is set. Now, any House majority may impeach a president whenever, by its sole judgment, he fails to conform to his opponents' ideas of what is best for the nation.

Never mind the Constitution's terms: never mind "bribery," never mind "treason," and never mind "or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Just differing with the opposing party over the interests of the U.S. is sufficient now to "impeach" the president. Nor must his accusers promptly refer the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

They may now also decide--for cheap political motives--to "short-cut" the process when it's clear that their case has no hope of a favorable outcome in the Senate. That way, they attempt to "stain" the president with the fact of their having "challenged", "questioned", "doubted" his views of the best interests of the United States and at the same time avoid the political embarrassment of failing to convict--and in failing, failing to win a single member of the president's party over to their view of his misconduct. Because that, too, has been, for the first time in U.S. history, set as a precedent.

All of this is beyond margd's nursery-school notions of U.S. constitutional law and practice. And Speaker Pelosi, too, is so morally-lost that she simply doesn't give a damn about anything beyond "getting President Trump" : getting him out of office or smearing him in the hope of damaging his re-election chances.

Instead, idiot that she is, Speaker Pelosi has done more than any other individual to help ensure that President Trump, impeached--and, convicted or not--shall be re-elected in 2020.

>28 John5918: if someone said that John McCain was POTUS would that person be mistaken, or lying?

If someone says that Trump has been found guilty, and are merely "mistaken", it's important that they be shown that they are "mistaken". And if they continue to insist that Trump has been found guilty, that says a lot about their mental acumen, as they are obviously deluded.

>29 proximity1: any four-year-old can copy & paste, you do them an injustice with your comparison...😉😁

>32 fuzzi:

Indeed. Demonstrate to people that you believe they are mistaken rather than accusing them of being liars.

Impeachment isn't a legal criminal process; it's a political indictment process for government officials who violate their oaths to the Constitution. By impeaching Trump he has been found guilty of violating his oath to the Constitution. Sentencing is determined by the Senate -- whether it will punish by removal, forced resignation (a punishment Republicans fiercely deny is a punishment), ban from future political office, nothing at all, or whatever.

The issue that remains now is whether Republican senators will ignore the evidence (like proximity1), ignore the will of the people (currently at 55% for removalhttps://www.businessinsider.com/poll-majority-of-americans-say-should-trump-be-i..., and ignore their constitutional oaths to the Constitution.

Sure they will! They're spineless, cowardly Republicans!!

And since it is a political process Pelosi is marching Trump around like a dog on a leash, holding the indictment of the House over his heads, slowly and effectively driving him crazier, driving to more erratic ineffectual response, and giving the American people more time to see what a scum sit in the oval office. Why, even Faux news staff can't scramble fast enough to come up with lies to make this presidency look good, and have folded their tents.

But the true beauty of Pelosi's strategy is 1) the investigations into Trump Admin corruption continues and more damning evidence is revealed; 2) more implicated participants in the crime and cover-up want to testify; 3) more corrupt politicians from Mitch McConnell to the nincompoops like Johnson, Nunes, and Collins are losing voter support in their districts; and 4) more and more Republicans are "retiring" and refusing to run for re-election, i.e. rats leaving the sinking ship.

All of which: impeachment, exposure of Republican corruption, display of Trump scumminess, increasing Republican political weakness, and increased chance for the survival of our democratic republic.

And P.S. for proximity1 -- Tulsi Gabbard has lost 7% favorability in voter polls since her "present" vote on impeachment. She now ranks #10 on list of Dem candidates, leading the bottom of under two per-centers. Only Deval Patrick has a lower favorability rating. https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ Next Dem nominee? Next elected president? Nope. Next not-even-a-footnote? Yep. Too bad for the current darling for former Trump voters who won't vote for him in '20. Sad.

>35 Limelite:

"By impeaching Trump he has been found guilty of violating his oath to the Constitution."

CATEGORICALLY FALSE

"Sentencing is determined by the Senate -- whether it will punish by removal, forced resignation (a punishment Republicans fiercely deny is a punishment), ban from future political office, nothing at all,
or whatever*"
_________________

* i.e. "Not guilty" LOL!
(emphasis added)

CATEGORICALLY FALSE

"But the true beauty of Pelosi's strategy is

1) the investigations into Trump Admin corruption continues and more damning evidence is revealed;

CATEGORICALLY FALSE

2) more implicated participants in the crime and cover-up want to testify;

(NONE SUCH CITED BY THIS PROVEN LIAR. )

3) more corrupt politicians from Mitch McConnell to the nincompoops like Johnson, Nunes, and Collins are losing voter support in their districts; and 4) more and more Republicans are "retiring" and refusing to run for re-election, i.e. rats leaving the sinking ship.

SEE YOU IN NOVEMBER, 2020

I am the Ghost of Democratic-Party-presidential-campaigns-future*



(* If Tulsi Gabbard isn't nominated.)

Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion
Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman and Mark Mazzetti | Dec. 29, 2019

The inside story of President Trump’s demand to halt military assistance to an ally shows the price he was willing to pay to carry out his agenda.

...In late August, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper joined Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed Oval Office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in interests of the United States.

By late summer, top lawyers at the Office of Management and Budget who had spoken to lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department in the weeks beforehand, were developing an argument — not previously divulged publicly — that Mr. Trump’s role as commander in chief would simply allow him to override Congress on the issue.

And Mr. Mulvaney is shown to have been deeply involved as a key conduit for transmitting Mr. Trump’s demands for the freeze across the administration.

The interviews and documents show how Mr. Trump used the bureaucracy to advance his agenda in the face of questions about its propriety and even legality from officials in the White House budget office and the Pentagon, many of whom say they were kept in the dark about the president’s motivations and had grown used to convention-flouting requests from the West Wing. One veteran budget official who raised questions about the legal justification was pushed aside...

...On Sept. 10, the day before Mr. Trump changed his mind, a political appointee at the budget office (OMB), Michael P. Duffey, wrote a lengthy email to the Pentagon’s top budget official, with whom he had been at odds throughout the summer about how long the agency could withhold the aid.

He asserted that the Defense Department had the authority to do more to ensure that the aid could be released to Ukraine by the congressionally mandated deadline of the end of that month, suggesting that responsibility for any failure should not rest with the White House.

Forty-three minutes later, the Pentagon official, Elaine McCusker, hit send on a brief but stinging reply.

“You can’t be serious,” she wrote. “I am speechless.” ...

...(June) Russell T. Vought, the acting head of the Office of Management and Budget...and his team took to Google, and came upon a piece in the conservative Washington Examiner saying that the Pentagon would pay for weapons and other military equipment for Ukraine, bringing American security aid to the country to $1.5 billion since 2014.

The money, the article noted, was coming at a critical moment: Mr. Zelensky, a onetime comedian, had called ending the armed conflict with Russia in eastern Ukraine his top priority — a move that would likely only happen if he could negotiate from a position of strength.

The budget office officials had little idea of why Mr. Trump was interested in the topic, but many of the president’s more senior aides were well aware of his feelings about Ukraine. Weeks earlier, in an Oval Office meeting on May 23, with Mr. Sondland, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Blair in attendance, Mr. Trump batted away assurances that Mr. Zelensky was committed to confronting corruption....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html

________________________________________________________________

ETA: Mulvaney, OMB role

New Report Details Unrest Among Trump Officials As Trump Withheld Ukraine Aid
Ja'han Jones | December 29, 2019

...Trump’s chief of staff and head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, worked with a cadre of budget officials to withhold the aid; retain plausible deniability; and ultimately pass the blame for it to others in the administration when Congress and wary citizens began to scrutinize it more closely.

By late summer, top lawyers at OMB, who had previously coordinated with White House and Justice Department lawyers on withholding the aid, “were developing an argument — not previously divulged publicly — that Mr. Trump’s role as commander in chief would simply allow him to override Congress on the issue.”

...Mulvaney allegedly sought to avoid conversations that could endanger himself or put Trump in a precarious legal position...“Mr. Mulvaney is said by associates to have stepped out of the room whenever Mr. Trump would talk with Mr. Giuliani to preserve Mr. Trump’s attorney-client privilege.”

Mulvaney reportedly worked closely with acting OMB head Russell Vought, associate OMB director Michael Duffey, White House assistant Robert Blair, and OMB top lawyer Mark Paoletta...

But as the plan unraveled and the world got word of Trump’s efforts, Duffey tried to pass the buck (e.g., to DOD--see McCusker quote above)...and attempted to cleanse himself and others involved of responsibility for withholding the aid...

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/new-report-unrest-among-trump-officials-ukraine-a...

__________________________________________________________________

ETA: Putin...

Rachel Maddow MSNBC @maddow | 8:40 PM · Dec 29, 2019
This, alone (in NYT article, Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion):

“There was no public announcement that Trump wanted the assistance withheld. Neither Congress nor the Ukrainian government was notified.”

The insistence on just quietly hurting Ukraine in their war with Russia— who was the audience for it?

>37 margd: "Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion" (NYT), contd.

“Mulvaney...stepped out of the room when Trump would talk with Giuliani to preserve Trump’s attorney-client privilege....”
Amazing and incriminating. Makes clear Trump was pursuing personal, non-governmental interests in dealing as president with Ukraine.

-Bill Kristol @BillKristol | 7:02 PM · Dec 29, 2019

Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns
Kate Brannen | January 2, 2020

...Just Security has viewed unredacted copies of these emails, which begin in June and end in early October. Together, they tell the behind-the-scenes story of the defense and budget officials who had to carry out the president’s unexplained hold on military aid to Ukraine.

The documents reveal growing concern from Pentagon officials that the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the executive branch to spend money as appropriated by Congress, and that the necessary steps to avoid this result weren’t being taken. Those steps would include notifying Congress that the funding was being held or shifted elsewhere, a step that was never taken. The emails also show that no rationale was ever given for why the hold was put in place or why it was eventually lifted.

What is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted; no one else appears to have supported his position. ...

https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-documents-reveal...

Judge rules Giuliani associate Lev Parnas can provide documents in impeachment proceedings
Marty Johnson - 01/03/20

...“Review of these materials is essential to the Committee’s ability to corroborate the strength of Mr. Parnas’s potential testimony,” Joseph Bondy, Parnas’s attorney, said in a filing.

Parnas has already provided the House Intelligence Committee with some documents through congressional subpoena.

Parnas and Igor Fruman, also an associate of Giuliani's, aided the former New York City mayor in opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine...

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/476680-judge-rules-giuliani-associat...

White House Withholds 20 Emails Between Two Trump Aides on Ukraine Aid
Charlie Savage and Eric Lipton | Jan. 3, 2020

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration disclosed on Friday that there were 20 emails between a top aide to President Trump’s acting chief of staff and a colleague at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget discussing the freeze of a congressionally mandated military aid package for Ukraine.

But in response to a court order that it swiftly process those pages in response to a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, lawsuit filed by The New York Times, the Office of Management and Budget delivered a terse letter saying it would not turn over any of the 40 pages of emails — not even with redactions.

...The Times’s information act request sought email messages between Robert Blair, a top aide to Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and Michael Duffey, an official in the White House’s Office of Management and Budget who was in charge of handling the process for releasing $391 million in weapons and security assistance Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html

Like Trump, Clinton also launched an Iraq airstrike as his impeachment inquiry was heating up (Business Insider)

People on social media believe President Donald Trump may be taking a page from Bill Clinton's playbook by escalating tensions with Iraq amid his impeachment inquiry...

> 42 Article doesn't ID Clinton's target, but didn't he bomb Bin Laden "paint factory" about then?

>43 margd:

I lose track of time and of who was the US president on any one occasion of US military adventurism, but I think it was the early nineties when the USA bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, claiming it was making chemical weapons. All of us who lived in Khartoum knew where the real chemical weapons factory was, and it wasn't the one which was bombed.

from Fox News just now

John Bolton: I will testify in impeachment trial if subpoenaed

“The House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter,” Bolton said Monday. “It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.”

“Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study,” he continued. “I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.”

So, Bolton is willing to testify before the Senate but not the House? Could it be he's making this announcement because he can appear patriotic but never in danger of fulfilling his self-serving statement, since McTurtle refuses to allow witnesses in the trial phase?

Frankly, I hope McTurtle succumbs to peer pressure, and Bolton testifies -- it will be a delightful disaster. Besides, he really has nothing to tell. All he has first-hand knowledge of is what Col. Vindman and Dr. Hill already testified to. But his potential for implicating Mulvaney and, further, Sondland as the cooker-uppers of the "drug deal," could require additional testimony from more witnesses. heh heh.

And that could explode nicely in the faces of the Republican senators and their plans for a sham trial.

>46 Limelite:

Democrat-Keystone Cops, sirens blaring: "Full speed!, ahead!"

LOL!

(Pray for the country's soul while you're at it.)

>47 proximity1:

Non-prayer here. As if I needed proof prayers don't work when it comes to "saving," just witness your wasted breath praying for Tulsi Gabbard to be the Democratic nominee. Hee hee.

Isn't it about time you changed your allegiance again? Shouldn't you be writing another laudatory whistle in the wind diary for newly announced presidential candidate Libertarian Chaffee to be the man who "saves the country's soul"?

What Will Happen to The Trump Toadies? Look to Nixon’s defenders, and the Vichy collaborators, for clues.
Frank Rich | Jan 7, 2020

...All cults come to an end, often abruptly, and Trump’s Republican Party is nothing if not a cult. While cult leaders are generally incapable of remorse... their followers almost always pay a human and reputational price once the leader is toppled.

....Whether these enablers joined his administration in earnest, or aided and abetted it from elite perches in politics, Congress, the media, or the private sector, they will be remembered for cheering on a leader whose record in government (thus far) includes splitting up immigrant families and incarcerating their children in cages; encouraging a spike in racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic vigilantes; leveraging American power to promote ethnic cleansing abroad and punish political opponents at home; actively inciting climate change and environmental wreckage; and surrendering America’s national security to an international rogue’s gallery of despots.

That selective short list doesn’t take into account any new White House felonies still to come, any future repercussions here and abroad of Trump’s actions to date, or any previous foul deeds that have so far eluded public exposure.

...Judgment ... will be rendered by an ever-more demographically diverse America unlikely to be magnanimous toward cynical politicians who prioritized pandering to Trump’s dwindling all-white base over the common good.

...Heedless lapdogs like Kennedy, Devin Nunes, and Lindsey Graham are acting now as if there is no tomorrow, but tomorrow will come eventually, whatever happens in the near future, and Judgment Day could arrive sooner than they think...

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/what-will-happen-to-trumps-republican-col...

"Toppled"!?

Trump is well on his way to being re-elected.

"Judgment Day could arrive sooner than they think."

"judgment day" is already well-fixed, M. Rich.

It comes in November, 2020.

Deal with it.

>50 proximity1:

Deal with this:

You do your own research; I did mine at fact based sites.

Tulsi's support comes from people like you -- Trumpists who are desperate to jump off the sinking ship for one still afloat, though shipping water over the gun'ales. Chaffee's supporters will come from people like you -- Trumpists who are desperate to jump off the sinking ship, even if it means grabbing onto an anchor.

Trump has no more support in MI, NM. He loses to Biden, if he's the nominee, in FL, VA. He's losing support in AZ, WI. Polling averages since Dec. 31, 2019 show Trump's disapproval rating at 54%. Historical polling shows he is the most unpopular president of all US presidents since Truman.

Where will the 2020 election be decided? Probably WI, possibly MI, where Dems are poised to gain a senate seat. But PA, MN, CO, NM are highly unlikely to remain or flip for Trump.

Who will decided the election? Overwhelmingly, white women voters.

Who will support Trump? Overwhelmingly, old, white, misogynist men.

How many Tuesdays 'til Election Day?

>51 Limelite: why is it necessary to use name-calling? It's so juvenile.

I don't know what "fact-based" sites you used, but I think you're being mislead.

Please don't scream when Trump is re-elected. Just accept it and resolve to do better, as those of us who did not vote for Obama did.

Suggested video for those who feel as you do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs&list=FLZc6oTdxNLKcAVBEjgOGFpg&am...

>52 fuzzi: Are you comparing Obama to Trump? Obama wasn't perfect but what did he do to deserve your contempt?

>53 jjwilson61: I am a conservative who leans libertarian.

BHO's policies were opposite of everything I stand for.

His administration's scandals rival or surpass even Bill Clinton's.

I am one of those white females mentioned above who is supposed to vote against my conscience because of my sex. For my views I am labeled a racist, a white supremacist, a deplorable clinger to my gun (never owned one) and Bible because I have different political beliefs. I am not allowed to think that having convicted sex offenders read to toddlers sitting on their lap is bad, or that releasing criminals without bail is not a good idea. And my belief that asking for proof of residency before voting is somehow beyond the pale.

I don't engage much online because it has been my experience that most discussions on internet message boards are fruitless: dissent is heresy, the righteous left comes down hard on anyone who strays from the Correct Political Persuasion.

Thank you for asking.

What scandals? Fast & Furious? Benghazi? I don't see how you can blame the President for either of those.

>52 fuzzi: and >54 fuzzi:

Who are you to call me out for name calling when you support the nation's First Name Caller? The irony escaped you!? If you think I'm juvenile, then by your own logic you favor the pre-juvenile personality, as in infantile. The sanctimony in your post is mind-boggling.

As for asserting you are a "conservative who leans libertarian," female then I have to ask what's the attraction in Trump? A law-breaker, a grifter, a groper, a serial monogomist, a disrespecter of the military (McCain, Gold Star families, murderers that the Seals declared dishonored them), anti-free trade, and irreligious multi-sinner. If conservative means misogynist, racist bigot, law-breaker, bullying insulter, destroyer of American power and reputation, admirer of tyrants and dictators, Constitutional ignoramus, well call me surprised. Trump is all these things, but never conservative.

Frankly, your highly selective behaviors that you find offensive seem more aligned to a person's degree of liberalness, not their character.

As for Benghazi, let's remember that the Republicans cut over $500,000,000 proposed by Obama when president to upgrade the security at America's most endangered State Department foreign offices overseas. If anyone's to blame for Benghazi, it would be ex-rep Trey Gowdy and his fellow travelers who voted "no" in order to carry out McConnell's spite campaign against Obama.

Just ask yourself which administration had not a single person convicted of a felony in 8 years of governing. That would be Obama's. I've lost count of the corruption convictions among Trump officials and personal attorneys. Trump's disregard for any law is already legendary in presidential history.

Sadly, the "conservatives" have allowed the neo-Nazi, white supremacist, Rapture addicts take over their party. The GOP is now nothing more than a zombie political party.

Finally, based on your own self-description, if you honestly have the values you ascribe to yourself, then Lincoln Chaffee should be your candidate. His self-description is identical to yours. And he may just be a man of at least average intelligence, knowledge of governing, and positive character. Perhaps an individual a conservative need not feel ashamed of supporting. Maybe.

How does anyone who decries sex offenders support Trump? Trump who (let's not even go into his own sex scandals and pussy-grabbing proclivities) endorsed Roy Moore in Alabama. Joked about Epstein liking them "on the young side".

And that's barely touching on the iceberg of this goon's moral turpitude. Pardoning racists and war criminals, boasting about impunity even in the case of murder, siccing hound dogs at elected public officials and American citizens of colour or Muslim faith, ridiculing disabled people to the masses of his followers, posting videos that show him violently assaulting reporters and Hillary Clinton...

And that's STILL just a fraction of the swampy crap that deluged the US and the world since this creature got installed POTUS.

>54 fuzzi: sex offenders

Thanks, fuzzi, for sharing your reasons for supporting Trump. I'll just pick up again on sex offenders, as I agree with you that it is an extremely serious issue. Trump has never been convicted in court, but he is on record admitting (nay, boasting) to being a serial sex offender. Does that not give you pause for thought? Would you feel differently if it had been you or your daughter whom he had grabbed by the pussy in the street? Is it OK for other men to grab random women such as yourself by the pussy in the street? If you object to having sex offenders reading to children, do you not object to having an admitted sex offender leading your nation?

The House Should Subpoena Witnesses Before Transmitting Impeachment Articles
Philip Bobbitt | January 10, 2020

Because it is now clear that the Senate will not take steps to ensure that it has all the relevant information before commencing its trial of impeachment, the House should subpoena those witnesses whose testimony would determine—either way—the president’s personal culpability in the withholding of appropriated military assistance to Ukraine.

If (John Bolton) and others similarly situated—that is, persons with first-hand knowledge of the president’s actions and motivations such as the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—refuse to honor subpoenas for their testimony, the House should immediately seek an injunction directing their testimony.

Until their testimony is heard—or until the Senate commits to seeking their testimony and compelling it if necessary—the bill of impeachment adopted by the House should not be transmitted to the Senate...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-should-subpoena-witnesses-transmitting-impeach...

________________________________________________________________________________

Pelosi’s holding the articles provided time to make the case for a fair trial and witnesses, and ensured scrutiny of McConnell’s rules.
The gambit failed to dislodge GOP senators on the initial rules, but has made later votes on witnesses inevitable and more likely successful.

-Bill Kristol @BillKristol | 8:10 AM · Jan 10, 2020

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mitch McConnell making sense.

On a vote to subpoena witnesses for the Senate trial:
"It is my hope that will pass.
And I have argued strenuously that...we ought to make that a bipartisan vote...
I think it makes a lot of sense to do that on a large bipartisan basis."
0:17 ( https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1215632962777239552 )

-Bill Kristol @BillKristol8:54 AM · Jan 10, 2020

ETA______________________________________________________________________________

Ooh, McConnell threatens to do his job!

Mitch McConnell says if Nancy Pelosi doesn’t send the articles of impeachment to the Senate,
the Senate will turn to “the people’s business” next week and could take up
the new NAFTA trade deal or a war powers resolution.

-Laura Litvan (Bloomberg News) @LauraLitvan10:15 AM · Jan 9, 2020

I rest my case, aside from @jjwilson61, who I will respond to once I get a moment to compose a thoughtful reply.

Addendum: oh, John? I'll respond to you as well, though you are sadly mistaken. It's understandable, as so many quotes attributed to Trump are not quotes. You see, I actually LISTEN to video/audio, and don't rely on others telling me what was said.

>60 fuzzi:

Thanks. Interesting, as I seem to remember also listening to that tape.

Edited to add: I also don't recall Trump or his supporters denying it as "fake news", but rather taking the line that it is unimportant. No doubt you will refresh my memory and enlighten me.

Edited to add again: I've just searched for it online and listened to it again. Interesting.

Why Trump's plan to bar Bolton from testifying won't work: "There are limits to executive privilege"
Matthew Chapman | January 12, 2020

...(Interviewer) “You heard President Trump say if Bolton is allowed to testify, he’d invoke executive privilege...That’s not how executive privilege works. Typically what happens is the witness at least shows up, and then if there’s specific questions he or she can’t answer, then you invoke executive privilege. Explain this for us.”

(former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne) “Well, the first thing we know is that all of the talk that the president had for so long about he’d love to have Bolton testify — that was not true, that was a lie, number one... Number two, the White House has used this notion of executive privilege or some kind of absolute immunity to try to get people not to come at all, not to even sit in the chair and have to face the questions. The idea with executive privilege is we want to protect important discussions between members of the executive about matters of policy so that a person would come, sit in the chair, be asked a question. If it had to do with a real policy issue, then the question could be blocked...But there are limits to executive privilege...For instance, you can’t use executive privilege to cover up a crime, and what we have here is extortion, and so executive privilege does not apply to the questions about the Ukraine extortion...It doesn’t also apply to people who are outside the executive branch, so conversations with Rudy Giuliani, conversations he had with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, what they were going to do to extort Zelensky, none of that is covered by executive privilege”...

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/12/trump-john-bolton-testimony-executive-privilege...

40 contd.

Joseph A. Bondy (Lev Parnas's attorney) @josephabondy | 9:00 PM · Jan 12, 2020:

We brought the contents of Lev Parnas’ iPhone 11 to (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) today,
despite every stumbling block placed in our path since @DOJ SDNY arrested him on 10/9/19.

#LetLevSpeak #LevRemembers

Hope Barr's boys don't epstein Lev Parnas!

NEW:

A federal judge just GRANTED permission for Lev Parnas to share extractions from
three more electronic devices with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Image ( https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1216752802745196547/photo/1 )

-Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports | 11:04 AM · Jan 13, 2020
______________________________________________________________________

?

This is devastating for Mike Huckabee, Matt Gaetz and Devin Nunes

-Daniel W. Uhlfelder @DWUhlfelderLaw | 1:00 PM · Jan 13, 2020

_______________________________________________________________________

Giuliani associate Lev Parnas turns over thousands of pages of documents to impeachment investigators
Kara Scannell | January 13, 2020
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/lev-parnas-house-documents/index.html

_______________________________________________________________________

ETA Below, photos themselves speak loudly!

Joseph A. Bondy @josephabondy | 8:57 PM · Jan 13, 2020:

Call the witnesses.
@realDonaldTrump
@RudyGiuliani
@senatemajldr
@SenSchumer

#LetLevSpeak #LevRemembers

0:14 ( https://twitter.com/josephabondy/status/1216902048647610369 )

Russians Hacked Ukrainian Gas Company at Center of Impeachment
Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg | Jan. 13, 2020. Updated Jan. 14, 2020

With President Trump facing an impeachment trial over his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, Russian military hackers have been boring into the Ukrainian gas company at the center of the affair, according to security experts.

The hacking attempts against Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served, began in early November, as talk of the Bidens, Ukraine and impeachment was dominating the news in the United States.

It is not yet clear what the hackers found, or precisely what they were searching for. But the experts say the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens — the same kind of information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment.

...American officials are warning that the Russians have grown stealthier since 2016, and are again seeking to steal and spread damaging information and target vulnerable election systems ahead of the 2020 election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-burisma-ukraine.h...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrea Mitchell (NBC) @mitchellreports | 9:47 PM · Jan 13, 2020
@SenSchumer and @RepAdamSchiff both tell @Maddow
they learned about Russian military hacked Burisma the Ukrainian (energy) company that put Hunter Biden on its board
from @nytimes not from US intel

Top Senate Republicans reject Trump’s renewed call for immediate dismissal of impeachment charges
Seung Min Kim, Mike DeBonis and Elise Viebeck
Jan. 13, 2020

...over the weekend, Trump urged the Senate simply to dismiss the charges against him — without hearing arguments from House prosecutors or his own legal team.

...Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that he wants the trial — only the third impeachment of a president in U.S. history — to follow the format used 21 years ago in the trial of President Bill Clinton. In that case, the Senate approved a resolution that would have allowed the Senate to vote to dismiss the charges.

But senior Republicans signaled Monday that they are not inclined to include such a provision in the resolution that will kick off Trump’s trial, perhaps as soon as Thursday...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-senate-republicans-reject-trumps-ren...

Wow, wow, and wow! Parnas material released by House Intelligence Committee shows why State extracted the Ukraine Ambassador so quickly! Sounds like some of the guys tracking her were willing to assassinate? And DOJ didn't give this material to Intelligence Committee--PARNAS requested court permission to send it over! What chance Barr's DOJ will investigate fully and fairly??? How could Senate now acquit??

Judd Legum @JuddLegum | 6:36 PM · Jan 14, 2020:

Wow.

Texts from Giuliani cronies, just released by House, are incredibly disturbing.

One text discusses unsavory characters in Ukraine willing to "help" with Yovanovitch for "a price"

A few weeks later Yovanovitch was told to leave immediately over concerns about her safety

Image ( https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1217229051594780674/photo/1 margd:see highlighted portion. Remember Trump saying ~ "she'll be going through some bad things"?)

Image ( https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1217229051594780674/photo/2 )
_________________________________________________________________________

BREAKING: Ambassador Yovanovitch calls for an investigation into whether she was surveilled.
Her lawyer Lawrence Robbins tells @NBCNews the notion her movements were being monitored is "disturbing"

Image ( https://twitter.com/JoshNBCNews/status/1217261122602094597/photo/1 )

-Josh Lederman @JoshNBCNews8:44 PM · Jan 14, 2020

__________________________________________________________________________

Lev Parnas Adds New Details on Push to Oust U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum and Michael Rothfeld | Jan. 14, 2020. Updated Jan. 15, 2020

Records released just before President Trump’s impeachment trial included texts that suggested the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, was being watched in Kyiv...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/nyregion/lev-parnas.html

__________________________________________________________________________

Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani have demolished Trump’s claims of innocence
Neal Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer | Jan. 15, 2020

New documents show why the president has been trying to hide evidence from Congress...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/15/lev-parnas-rudy-giuliani-have-...

____________________________________________________________________________

List: House impeachment managers announced for Trump Senate trial
Clare Foran and Jeremy Herb | Wed January 15, 2020

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat

Committee on House Administration Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat

Rep. Val Demings, a Florida Democrat...a member of both the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees

Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado...serves on the House Armed Services and Small Business Committees.

Rep. Sylvia Garcia of Texas...serves on the House Judiciary Committee...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/list-house-impeachment-managers/index.ht...

Trump's self-defense completely destroyed as docs prove he acted as "private citizen" in his "own self-interest" in seeking announcement of investigation into Biden "crimes " by Pres. Z. of Ukraine.

And Republican supporters' of Trump contentions that Trump had nothing to do with shakedown of Pres. Z because Giuliani had "gone rogue" and was in Ukraine on mission of sovereign intimidation of Ukraine, and dirt on Bidens besides the atual shakedown is destroyed. Giuliani is a first hand witness and his letter is a confession of, "The president (as private citizen) made me do it!"

Will be revealing just how thorough Republican corruption runs in the face of hard evidence from first hand witnesses, especially after all their protestations that the Dems presented no direct evidence of wrong doing. Well, Lev Parnas and his lawyer certainly did! Now Republicans have to retreat (again and again) from their objections to Trump's actual guilt.

An upshot to this positive support for the Dem's impeachment case is that these revelations may very well push some of the Trumpist lemmings our of the hered and make demands to hear witnesses. And an unlooked for good thing may be the uncovering of McConnell's arm twisting (money promises for future campaigns, etc.) methods used to keep his majority in line.

Curioser and curioser. . .

Impeachment trial security crackdown will limit Capitol press access
Katherine Tully-McManus | Jan 14, 2020

Press pens and ‘no walking and talking’ draw criticism from press corps advocates

...The Senate sergeant-at-arms and Capitol Police are launching an unprecedented crackdown on the Capitol press corps for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, following a standoff between the Capitol’s chief security officials, Senate Rules Chairman Roy Blunt and the standing committees of correspondents.

Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael C. Stenger will enact a plan that intends to protect senators and the chamber, but it also suggests that credentialed reporters and photographers whom senators interact with on a daily basis are considered a threat.

Additional security screening and limited movement within the Capitol for reporters are two issues that are drawing criticism from Capitol Hill media....

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/impeachment-trial-security-crackdown-will...

Sen. J. Kennedy (R) LA, non-snowflake? At least he recognizes a wrong message when he sees one.

“I think it’s a huge mistake. U.S. senators are grown women and grown men. If they don’t want to make a comment, they know how to say no comment. We’re not children. We’re grown men and grown women,” he said. “And if you don’t want to talk to the press, you don’t have to talk to the press, all you gotta say is ‘No comment.’ If you guys ask 150 times, say no comment 150 times.”

#68--not that impressed with the two New Yorkers. Schiff is a lot better at questioning than Nadler. I think the sole reason that Jeffries is there is he's a favorite to become the No. 1 or 2 democrat in the house some day. Jamie Raskin from Maryland would have been a good pick IMO---a constitutional lawyer and he's a very good speaker.

I didn't see all of the first half of the Parnas interview with Rachel Maddow tonight (I had to take a time out to walk the dogs) but I saw most. Sounds to me like Pence, Barr and Pompeo could also all be impeached. Parnas makes clear they were all in on the conspiracy. Maddow explaining to Lawrence O'Donnell later that Parnas wanted it all out in public so that no accident need happen to him.

I think it's pretty clear and whether or not Trump is removed that Donald is guilty of numerous felonies.

Strange title. Video records delivery to Senate of articles of impeachment by house managers, clerk, etc. followed by straightforward procedural votes--plus one out-of-place mention of USMCA. Interesting as a historical inflection point.

See McConnell’s response to arrival of impeachment articles (9:23)
Jan 15, 2020

The House of Representatives formally presented two articles of impeachment to the Senate after voting to approve the seven managers to prosecute the case against President Donald Trump, a long-awaited move that marks the beginning of the third Senate impeachment trial of a US President in history.

#CNN #News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s99yxVJOY9I

When asked about this Robert Hyde----Parnas kind of dismissed him as a hanger on wannabe type who was always hanging around the Washington Trump hotel bar getting drunk. The question though of how Hyde knew about what was going on with Yovanovich in Ukraine and was texting Parnas about it speaks to the Vice President's knowledge of what was going on in that when questioned more about Hyde Parnas said that he knew him through Greg Pence---the V.P.'s brother who is the republican congressman for Indiana 5th district. It's kind of obvious that 1) Hyde worked with Giuliani or 2) that he learned what he learned about the Yovanovitch surveillance through the V.P.'s brother. The Vice President then is fully complicit in a criminal conspiracy.

"Well, Lev Parnas and his lawyer certainly did! Now Republicans have to retreat (again and again) from their objections to Trump's actual guilt." (1)

(1) See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events#20t...


(January 15th, 2020: Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the United States House of Representatives and Paul D. Irving, Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives leading House Democrats' (Impeachment-Trial Managers) suicidal cult-leaders, in a ritual delivery of documents prior to their group's mass political-suicide in November of 2020) (© Julio Cortez /AP ))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events#21s...

What actual guilt? What's the alleged crime? Cite the statutes, please. Oh, you can't? Well, I see. You don't know what this guy Parnas has as "hard evidence". What's that? You don't care? As long as the lynch-Trump press corps' members, all of whom have egg all over their faces, publish the words "Hard" and "evidence" between quotation-marks, you're satisfied?

What "docs"? You don't know? You just heard a claim repeatedly published in the press? You haven't seen a shred of evidence of the existence of this "hard evidence"? Oh.

Well, then, tell me just this, who is being quoted?

I must have read seven or eight different reports--all of them with the same sensational quote : "hard evidence" and I still cannot tell anyone who those words come from. Parnas himself? His (criminal) lawyer?

So, what and where is this hard "evidence"? If it's really "hard", better bring it in and put it on a table where it can be examined. Or, otherwise, as they say, "Go fuck off."

I cannot imagine why a prosecutor would offer to make a deal with Parnas based on the mere claim of possessing "hard evidence" of Trump's guilt.

Had there been any, why wasn't it brought before the House impeachment committee for a hearing so that it could be incorporated into the articles of impeachment?--finally giving Democrats something more to go on than merely, "We fucking loathe this Trump guy, hate his guts, and want him out, no matter what."

Political vendettas are the stuff of fifth-rate nations, "Banana-republics."

"Michael Moore On Sanders-Warren Sexism Feud: They Will Mark January 13 As 'The Day Donald Trump Was Re-Elected' "
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/15/michael_moore_on_sanderswarre...

"Brian Williams on MSNBC asked (David) Plouffe (campaign manager for Barack Obama in 2008), 'How is this party going to beat Donald Trump?' and he probably didn’t expect the answer he got:

'Well, it’s going to be really hard. One of the things that I have a great fear of is I think people see his approval ratings and they assume he’s going to be easy to beat. He’s not.' ... He didn’t run a great campaign in ’16. He’s going to run a great campaign this time. One of Facebook’s executives (Andrew Bosworth) recently said that Donald Trump and his campaign are the best marketers in the world. Not the best political marketing; the best marketing in the world!' "

...

"Former Obama administration official Van Jones said he was not encouraged by what he saw from the six candidates on the Des Moines stage:

'As a progressive, to see those two (Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders) have that level of vitriol was very dispiriting. And I want to say that tonight for me was dispiriting. Democrats got to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out, and I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible.' ”
... ...
_____________________

(https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/15/what_impeachment_dem_debate_sets_stage_for_trump_reelection_142159.html)

Angela Rye, CNN Contributor, Former. Democratic Party strategist:

"I have to be honest with you, because that is my pledge as a person who has a platform on TV, and I have to be honest with you, that debate stage last night frightened me. It really did.

"There is a huge void with Kamala Harris out of the race. There is a huge void with Julian Castro out of the race. There is a huge void with Cory Booker out of the race. And I'm not just talking about ensuring that there is the appearance of diversity in a big tent by the Democratic party. It is also the ways in which our politics are being discussed. And it's frightening.

"It is not that I am only going to lend my support to a candidate of color,* but what I really have a problem with is how that debate stage was formulated. It is a huge party -- a huge party rift with the DNC. Why does that matter about when you talk about your -- the answer to your question? And that answer is simply this. If there is a rift in the party, I don't know that folks can come together to back one particular candidate, especially when you don't see a whole ton of strength, right? That worries me a great deal. And we have a lot of groundwork to do before this party can beat Donald Trump."
___________________
(emphasis added)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/15/cnns_angela_rye_dem_debate_st...

* Uhm, yeah, it really is that.

LOL!

The Senate Impeachment Trial is going to be the equivalent of a
Hollywood movie script being recorded. It will have the façade of
a real trial, but the ending has already been locked in by the
GOP/Cult45 reps. America's Founders must be spinning in their
graves, and Putin and his ilk around the globe must be very happy
campers.

>61 John5918: I reviewed the tape from 2005. There is nothing to indicate that Trump forced anyone to have sex. He said that "they" let him do what he wants because he's rich.

Nope, that's not being a sex offender, not being a rapist.

His words do indicate something about the character of those women.

But the truth doesn't always fit the narrative.

Do I approve of what he may have done 20 years ago? No, but I'm not expecting a holy and sinless man to run the country, but a successful businessman. And with the boom in the economy and the record-breaking unemployment, most of us are happy with what he has been doing to lead this country.

When Jesus Christ returns, then we will have our sinless leader.

>77 fuzzi:

Good grief. The fact that young and vulnerable women submit when a rich and powerful man gropes them, in a patriarchal society where such men generally used to get away with it (and often still do), is the woman's fault, not his? Victim blaming.

I didn't say the tape showed him to be a rapist (although there are many other allegations from women who say he did rape them). Someone who admits to serially committing sexual assaults on women, even if they "let him", is indeed a sex offender. Grabbing a woman by the pussy is a sexual assault.

The reason we put sex offenders on a lifelong register, and prevent them from taking certain roles in the future (even after they have "paid their debt to society" and served their prison term, which he hasn't) is because it is not simply a moral failing, a sin, an error, a crime, it is more like a psychological condition, a compulsion, an addiction, an obsession, and there continues to be a high risk of re-offending. That's the mistake the Catholic Church and other institutions made with sexual abuse - they thought it was a one-off offence, sin, crime, moral failing, and that the perpetrator could repent and be rehabilitated. You apparently recognise this yourself in >54 fuzzi:, when you object to "having convicted sex offenders read to toddlers". Why? Because there is a high risk of them re-offending. Putting a rich and powerful sex offender who preys on vulnerable young women into the most powerful position in the country simply because he is a "successful" businessman (and actually his business record is not that good, but that's a different issue) is rather strange. In his predecessor Bill Clinton we see the opportunities that a president has with vulnerable young women, and at least with Clinton there was no obvious warning that he had done this sort of thing before, whereas Trump has boasted about it.

His words do indicate something about the character of those women.

Are you being serious? His words indicate something about the character of this man, not his victims.

most of us are happy with what he has been doing to lead this country

Well, most of you didn't vote for him as he was elected on a minority vote due to your electoral college system, and there's no evidence that most US citizens are happy with what he is doing, although it's certainly true that his supporters have not significantly lost faith in him. He may well win the next election, but that still doesn't mean that most of you are happy with what he has been doing.

>77 fuzzi: Or she let him get away with it because she knows she can't do anything about it because he's rich. He can hire better lawyers and suing him would be career suicide anyway.

ETA: John said it better.

>78 John5918:

Well said. And not just career suicide. Weren't there allegations of intimidation against at least one of the women who did speak out publicly?

>55 jjwilson61: there is a long list of scandals that occurred under Obama's watch, during his presidency.

For him to say he had a scandal-free presidency is a lie, and he knows it.

"You can keep your plan"

"You can keep your doctor"

What was apparent from the beginning, when I and others who had not voted for him were resigned to his winning the election, was his total contempt for the average person.

“I won.” — Barack Obama to Republicans in Congress who were trying to discuss the stimulus plan with him.

https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/08/flashback-elections-have-consequences/

Fast & Furious? Yes.

IRS targeting of conservatives? Yes.

Spying illegally on journalists? Yes.

Spying illegally on citizens? Yes.

Here's a partial list here:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-says-hes-had-scandal-free-administration-aa...

Don't like dailywire? How about WSJ?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-scandal-free-administration-is-a-myth-148461...

Benghazi? How can anyone discount his reaction to it?

The call for help came in in the weeks preceding the attack, several calls from Ambassador Stevens, but the president did not respond. Reports are that he went to bed as he had a rally in Las Vegas the next day.

Leon Panetta testified that he never spoke with the president that evening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weq7hY0OhKs

Panetta was THE DEFENSE SECRETARY.

Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o’clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, “up to us.”

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

Then Obama sent Susan Rice to the Sunday morning programs to spread the lie that the attack was the result of a video.

Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.

The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.

Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.

An incredulous IBD editorialized, “How could emails be sent to the White House Situation Room in real time describing a terrorist attack on sovereign U.S. territory in which four Americans were killed as it happened, and as a drone flew overhead recording the truth of the carnage, and the President and Secretary of State insist that it was all about a video and there was no evidence to the contrary.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/25/benghazi-obamas-actions-amo...

The video-maker (who did nothing wrong) was jailed. His life has been ruined.

Then in a debate with candidate Romney he lied, and Candy Crowley covered for him:

https://thehill.com/policy/international/262421-obama-rebuts-romney-on-libya-wit...

And then later in an interview Obama refers to Benghazi: “But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road, because you know in a lot of these places, the one organizing principle has been Islam.”

An attack on a US embassy resulting in the deaths of four Americans is a bump in the road?

Yes, I have contempt for #44, though I do not hate him.

>79 jjwilson61: don't expect me to take the time to reply again. I thought you were serious about the subject.

>78 John5918: I thought women are not helpless?

If someone tried to touch me and I didn't want it, I would make it clear, and I would use physical force to make it very clear.

The fact that some women liked his advances, that allowed them, shows their own character.

Where are you on the young and helpless women being trafficked by Hollywood? Oh, is that okay Oprah?


Please do not lecture me on how you disapprove of our electoral system, which insures that the majority of the country is not ruled by the votes of those in two states (NY and California).

>82 fuzzi: Please do not lecture me on how you disapprove of our electoral system, which insures that the majority of the country is not ruled by the votes of those in two states (NY and California)

So, you think that living in a less populous state gives you some sort of moral superiority that should give you power over the majority of citizens? Well, Donald Trump gives the lie to that argument.

General Accountability Office: OMB violated the Impoundment Control Act.

Senator Chris Van Hollen @ChrisVanHollen | 9:50 AM · Jan 16, 2020:

This bombshell legal opinion from the independent @USGAO demonstrates, without a doubt,
that the Trump Administration illegally withheld assistance from Ukraine and
the public evidence shows that the president himself ordered this illegal act.

Image ( https://twitter.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/1217821544245841923/photo/1 )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ETA:
White House violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says
ANDREW DESIDERIO, KYLE CHENEY and CAITLIN EMMA | 01/16/2020

House Democrats have said the Ukraine aid pause is part of a broader “pattern of abuse” by the White House budget office...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/white-house-violated-the-law-by-freezin...

Schiff reading out the first article of impeachment right now. It's a clear and succinct and well written article.

>82 fuzzi: If someone tried to touch me and I didn't want it, I would make it clear, and I would use physical force to make it very clear.

You are presumably not young and vulnerable.

The fact that some women liked his advances, that allowed them, shows their own character.

We only have his word for the fact that they liked it. As for "allowed", that's victim blaming again. In Spain, for example, it is not legally rape unless the woman fights back. That she might be paralysed with fear, or that she might simply feel that she would be hurt more by fighting back, is not taken into consideration. You appear to have remarkably little sympathy/empathy for your younger sisters, nor understanding of what they are facing when up against men like Trump.

Where are you on the young and helpless women being trafficked by Hollywood?

Where do you think I am? Same place as I am on young and vulnerable women being abused by Trump, Clinton, Weinstein, Epstein, Prince Andrew, or anybody else.

Please do not lecture me on how you disapprove of our electoral system

I don't believe I expressed disapproval. I simply pointed out a fact to counter your claim that "most of us are happy with what he has been doing". I imagine >83 jjwilson61: and other US citizens can adequately express disapproval if they so wish.

>82 fuzzi:

Well aren't you the heroine of your own fiction! Of course, that also gives you the prerogative to be the moral arbiter of every other woman's sexual abuse. Jesus saves! BTW, don't hold your breath waiting for the return of a religious myth. Somehow, if all the stories about Jesus are to be believed, like the Mary Magdalene one, I don't think he'd favor your self-righteous proclamations over the histories of Trump's female victims.

Pointing and shouting, "Look over there," at Obama when the subject is Trump's Constitutional crimes is egregious, especially when you need two hands to count the number of Trump lackeys, associates, fixers, campaigners, and cabinet members who have been indicted, even tried and found guilty, imprisoned, forced to resign, and disgraced to the numbers in Obama's. Multitudes to none would be a good estimate of that ratio.

Like you, Republicans have a L O N G history of pointing the finger at the innocent in an attempt to divert attention from their own deplorable behavior. And they're wiling to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in witch hunts when there are no witches. Over $100,000,000 in an attempt to find Hillary Clinton guilty of something from the time she was first lady to Benghazi, to 2019 when Trump demanded the DoJ confirm criminal behavior where there was none. That profligate waste of money produced NOTHING factual to substantiate their fantasies against her. Doesn't that profligacy offend your conservative, fiscal responsibility values and opposition to Big Government overreach? It should, if you were an honest conservative. Even conservatives say that Hillary Clinton is "the most exonerated politician in history."

Democrats have spent about $7,000,000 on Mueller's investigation that produced all those shameful indictments around Russian interference and other 2016 election crimes, and on this impeachment that has revealed Trump and his government are the most corrupt president and administration that has ever led the Executive Branch. Ever. Even you know that is money well spent finding witches all over the place. If you are a true patriot.

What is obvious in your posts again is that you care nothing of true sexual crimes and Constitutional crimes being committed. For you, "IOKIYAR." You care nothing for your country, our democracy, or the suffering of women and underage girls violated by anyone with an "R" after their name, do you?

>85 lriley: contd. (Swearing in of Chief Justice and senators...looking for crossed fingies!)

January 16, 2020
Senate Impeachment Trial

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump begins with the reading of the impeachment articles and swearing-in of Chief Justice John Roberts & Senators. Final vote on the U.S., Mexico, Canada trade agreement is also expected.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?468210-3/senate-impeachment-trial-part-2&vod

________________________________________________________________

ETA: "the oath" (C-SPAN excerpt)

Chief Justice: "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?"

Senators: "I do."

0:38 ( https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1217888634902319104 )

>87 Limelite: there are only a few actions that will cause me to block someone.

One is threats of physical harm (yes, that happened here, member is still blocked).

Two is a mocking attitude about my Lord and Saviour, my God.

I'm sorry, but you just fulfilled Two.

>86 John5918: I once was, and had someone try to force me into something I did not want to do.

I'm glad that you don't give people like Weinstein a pass. Too bad most of Hollywood women including Oprah do.

>89 fuzzi:

Beats having to address the argument with evidence, doesn't it?

#89--Jesus.

#88--it was a pretty good day all in all. I mean I'm doubtful this joke of a president is going to be removed mostly because his party is made almost entirely up of clowns and hacks but someone also has to stand up and at least point out the crimes when they occur.

For those on the right who insist that Trump's impeachment trial can only convict him of a legal -- not Constitutional -- crime, today's your day! Welcome to the fold!

GAO finds Trump committed a CRIME by withholding aid to Ukraine as part of his conspiracy to shakedown of Pres. Zelensky, Ukraine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-hold-on-ukraine-aid-...

The GAO is an impartial oversight budget arm of the federal government. Check the historical records; it's much beloved by Republicans. Wonder if the love affair is over?

And the law Trump violated is a Federal Law.

So, there ya go.

Trump wants to be exonerated without presenting a defense. That never happens in legal trials. For those readers who demand an impeachment trial MUST be a legal trial, it's your turn to demand that Donald John Trump defend himself with evidentiary documents (they don't lie), witnesses, and his own testimony against the GAO's charge. At least. Otherwise, your past assertions that "it has to be a legal trial, not 'just hearsay'" are just words cast into the wind.

>88 margd: contd. (Reading articles of impeachment to Senate)

Jon Ward @jonward11
I was in Senate chamber during the reading of the articles of impeachment. Here is a little bit of color for those of you who were watching on TV. The Senate chamber was deathly quiet as Schiff read the articles, a process that went on for 15 minutes. (1)

All senators listened intently, but note-taking was far more prominent among the Democrats. A large number of Democratic senators busily scribbled notes as Schiff spoke, while most Republican senators sat still, listening. (2)

There were subtle contrasts between the 100 senators. Sen. Susan Collins & Sen. Lisa Murkowski sat next to one another, with somewhat pained expressions on their faces. Sen. Dianne Feinstein sat with crossed arms and dabbed at her nose with a tissue. (3)

Sen. Sherrod Brown was hunched over and furiously scribbling on a legal pad. Sen. Kamala Harris also spent much of the time writing in a journal, at times with her left hand resting on the side of her head. (4)

Sen. Tom Cotton, a former Army Captain, sat ramrod straight, his hands together in front of him on his desk, his eyes straight ahead. Sen. Cory Booker, had a similar posture, but his shoulders were slightly hunched over. (5)

Sen. Lindsey Grahahm, R-S.C., let out a lengthy yawn, as did Sen. Bill Cassiday, R-La. Sen. The brow of John Thune, R-S.D., was furrowed in an intense scowl. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, held his left hand over his mouth. (6)

All the House managers stood in the well of the Senate on the Democratic side, with their backs to the senators. Each manager held a blue binder with their copy of the articles of impeachment inside. Schiff read from a copy in a black binder that he left in the Senate. (7)

Schiff finished at 12:20 p.m. and the managers were led out of the chamber by Sergeant at arms Michael C. Stenger (fin)

Chris Murphy @ChrisMurphyCT | 4:42 PM · Jan 16, 2020:

Every day of the trial, I'm going write a twitter thread and Facebook post giving my read on the day's events (and some behind-the-scenes vignettes) in order to make sure the trial is as transparent as possible.

1/ So here we go:

2/ The vibe in the Senate was fundamentally different than any other day in the Senate. Totally somber. You could hear a pin drop when the House managers walked into the chamber. I sit next to @SenWarren and we agreed that our overwhelming emotion was sadness.

3/ After Adam Schiff read the articles, a group of Dem Senators huddled, noting how lucky the country is to have Schiff leading this trial. He's serious, dispassionate, level-headed. The right loathes him, but for non-political viewers of the trial, he will strike the right tone.

4/ After we were all sworn in, a surprise (at least for me): we were all requested to sign our names, one by one, in the trial's log book. Afterward, one of my colleagues showed me his notes, where he had kept track of how many Senators are left handed.

5/ I noticed there was less conversation today between R and D Senators. I think that's natural, on the first day. But I hope that doesn't become a habit during the trial. We need 4 votes to assure a fair trial, and that can only happen if we're talking to each other.

6/ Finally, just a note on how surreal it is, starting the trial on a day when major news continues to break. This is still an unfolding scandal, but all the evidence tells one story: the President committed an intolerable act of corruption, one that cannot stand in a democracy.

What should make people somber is the damage that this orange toad has been able to perpetuate the last three years and is ongoing as all this is happening but still I don't understand the need to say how 'somber' they are over and over again and I don't understand the pen bullshit either. Like everyone needs a historical pen to mark this occasion.

The Guardian view on the Trump trial: a defining moment for the rule of law (quoted in full)

The impeachment charges are serious and appropriate. They will test the power of Congress to restrain the president

Thu 16 Jan 2020 18.43 GMT Last modified on Thu 16 Jan 2020 19.59 GMT

The impeachment of a president of the United States is an immensely powerful constitutional act. Donald Trump is only the third president in more than 230 years to face trial in the Senate after being impeached by the House of Representatives. The trial that begins in earnest next week could result in Mr Trump becoming the first president to be dismissed from office. His two impeached predecessors – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999 – each escaped that outcome. Mr Trump is likely to escape it too. Nevertheless, this is a hugely solemn moment for the republic. Most Americans rightly take it seriously.

It is easy, but wrong, to overlook this. Mr Trump treats the impeachment and trial with everything bar solemnity. He regards it as nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt. Like Mr Clinton he will not attend the trial in person. Unlike Mr Clinton he is likely to spend the next month raging against the process and insulting his accusers. But this does not mean the trial itself is trivial. The formality of the initial proceedings this week is appropriate. Even in polarised and partisan times, the American public should not dismiss it as trivial either.

The two charges – the articles of impeachment – against Mr Trump are genuinely serious. The first says he “abused the powers of the presidency” by trying to get Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election. He did this in three ways, the article states: by corruptly soliciting investigations by Ukraine that would assist his re-election; by corruptly withholding aid to Ukraine unless it cooperated; and by corruptly persisting with pressuring Ukraine afterwards for his own benefit. The article concludes that this makes Mr Trump a threat to US national security if he remains in office. All in all, it is very much the kind of conduct that the Congress’s power to impeach was designed to control.

The second article charges Mr Trump with obstruction of Congress as it attempted to carry out its lawful power of impeachment. It says the obstruction involved defiance of subpoenas, and orders by Mr Trump to government officials not to comply either. Such defiance of an impeachment process is, in principle, itself impeachable. It will be tested during the trial when the Senate votes on whether to call officials, such as the former national security adviser John Bolton, the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and the Soviet-born US businessman Lev Parnas, as witnesses.

This will be a pivotal moment for America. If the Senate does not call the witnesses, it is in effect saying that Mr Trump is above the law. That would be an extraordinary abdication of constitutional responsibility. The US upper house was originally created as a restraint on both the elected house and the president. It was there, the historian Robert Caro writes, as a check on “the possibilities for tyranny inherent in executive authority”. That is why the Senate has so many powers, including that of trying an impeachment. Yet the current Senate is a place of ruthless partisanship and irreconcilability, acting invariably on behalf of Mr Trump.

This trial is therefore not just a defining moment for Mr Trump and for the presidency. It is also a defining moment for the Senate itself. If the Senate votes on purely party lines to acquit and Mr Trump is then re-elected, this would be an infamous outcome. The idea that a president can abuse his office for personal gain would be accepted. A new and lawless presidential legitimacy would be sanctioned. And the checks and balances of the US constitution would no longer exist and would need to be built afresh.

>90 fuzzi: I once was, and had someone try to force me into something I did not want to do.

Thank God you were in a position to resist, but don't blame those victims who weren't able to resist. Everybody's circumstances are different.

I'm glad that you don't give people like Weinstein a pass. Too bad most of Hollywood women including Oprah do.

Hollywood women and Oprah have nothing to do with me, and blaming her does not justify Trump's actions. All this is indicative of how powerful men think and behave, and how society colludes with them so they usually get away with it. You apparently object to Oprah colluding with Weinstein, but you don't see the parallels with your own collusion with Trump? I hope my position is more consistent. Weinstein should not get a free pass because he is apparently a successful film mogul (I'd never even heard of the bloke until he was outed for sexual assault) and Trump should not get a free pass because he was (arguably) a "successful" businessman.

>94 Limelite:

I've already posted details about the U.S. statutes on foreign aid and shown that there are clearly spelled out clauses which give the president the authority to withhold aid.

You ignored these.

_________________________

https://www.state.gov/foreign-military-sales-process-and-policy/

The Department of State is an executive branch department. It's executive, the secretary of State, is a Constitutional officer, and the post is filled by presidential-appointment. The Secretary of State serves under the president and at the pleasure of the president of the United States.

>100 proximity1: I've already posted details about the U.S. statutes on foreign aid and shown that there are clearly spelled out clauses which give the president the authority to withhold aid.

But are there no limits on the reasons for him to withhhold foreign aid? Do those statutes give him the authority to do so for his own personal gain, or for the political advantage of himself or his party?

Prox has this thing where he thinks he's the last word on legality and illegality. I would think most people would not defer to his opinion over the opinions of the Government Accounting Office.

Re: Prox

Cult followers will do anything/everything they can to prove their
fidelity to their cult leader.

LOL!

Read the fucking law. No one has to take my word for it.

The G.A.O. ain't a court of law.

https://legislation.lawi.us/arms-export-control-act/

https://uscode.lawi.us/title-22-chapter-39-subchapter-i-foreign-and-national-sec...

https://uscode.lawi.us/22-usc-2751/

_______________________

added 18 January 2020:

Trump Had Right to Withhold Ukraine Funds: GAO is Wrong | by Alan M. Dershowitz
January 17, 2020 at 7:00 pm |

● The Constitution allocates to the president sole authority over foreign policy (short of declaring war or signing a treaty). It does not permit Congress to substitute its foreign policy preferences for those of the president.

● To the extent that the statute at issue constrains the power of the president to conduct foreign policy, it is unconstitutional.

● Even if the GAO were correct in its legal conclusion — which it is not — the alleged violation would be neither a crime nor an impeachable offense. It would be a civil violation subject to a civil remedy, as were the numerous violations alleged by the GAO with regard to other presidents.

● If Congress and its GAO truly believe that President Trump violated the law, let them go to court and seek the civil remedy provided by the law.

>104 proximity1: "The G.A.O. ain't a court of law."

Exactly. People here seem to be comfortable saying Trump has committed multiple crimes. It bears noting that, so far, those are all allegations and opinions—or 100% partisan desperate hopes—and not verdicts.

Fuzzi’s Obama references highlight an undeniable truth: if Republicans had resorted to the dirty tactics being used by Dems, Obama would have been impeached multiple times for his abuses of power. Unfortunately, the precedent set by the impeachment of President Trump likely means we’ll have to endure more of these sad distractions in the future, regardless of the party of the president.

The Dem’s never-ending attempts to reverse the election they lost is a tired circus and I think most people just want the impeachment to be over. I don’t particularly care how it turns out. If President Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors then it’s time for him to go.

One thing is sure--if Trump comes out on top of this fight, he definitely has my vote in 2020.

>105 TrippB: "allegations and opinions"

For GAO, it's a "decision". GAO was apparently responding to Senator Chris Van Hollen (Dec 23, 2019 letter). I worked for an agency that was twice audited by GAO, both audits triggered by inquiry from a politician. GAO asks tough questions, but without fear or favor. From what I saw, they were very thorough. Not a fun experience, to be sure, but GAO was fair in its fact-finding and recommendations, regardless of the source of the concern.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance
https://www.gao.gov/products/D21272
B-331564: Jan 16, 2020

In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President...

View Decision (PDF, 9 pages) https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
View Decision (HTML) https://www.gao.gov/products/D21272#mt=e-report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Press statement regarding GAO Decision B-331564, Office of Management and Budget--Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance
https://www.gao.gov/press/press-statement-b-331564-omb-ukraine.htm
Jan 16, 2020

The following is a statement from Thomas H. Armstrong, Esq., General Counsel, U.S. Government Accountability Office, regarding a legal decision issued on January 16, 2020:

“Today, GAO issued a legal decision concluding that the Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine. The President has narrow, limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent “in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy.” The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.” The full decision can be found here: https://www.gao.gov/products/B-331564

For additional information please contact Jacques Arsenault in GAO’s Office of Public Affairs at 202-512-4612.

>106 margd:
Thank you for sharing GAO's opinions, regardless of what they prefer to call them.

“The ‘nonpartisan’ GAO is run by someone confirmed to a 15-year term in 2010 under a Democrat president, Democrat-controlled Senate and Democrat House,”
Opinion of New York Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin (although I wouldn't consider the history facts he states to be opinions)

“We disagree with GAO’s opinion. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president’s priorities and with the law.”
Opinion relayed by Rachel Semmel, OMB Spokesperson

Regarding the GAO opinion, er, decision: “We are not legally bound.”
Opinion shared by a senior White House aide

Nominations are generated by a bipartisan commission, from which President selects--an attempt to avoid partisan appointments.
15 year term provides continuity:

How the Comptroller General is Selected

The Congress established the current procedure for nominating a Comptroller General when it passed the GAO Act of 1980. Under the act, the Comptroller General is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. When a vacancy occurs in the office of the Comptroller General, the Congress establishes a commission to recommend individuals to the President. The commission consists of the following:

The Speaker of the House of Representatives
The President Pro Tempore of the Senate
The majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The commission must recommend at least three individuals to the President, and the President may request that the commission recommend additional individuals. The President then selects an individual from those recommended to nominate as the new Comptroller General. The President's nomination must be confirmed by the Senate. Comptrollers general are appointed for one nonrenewable 15-year term.

The commission process has thus been followed three times now, leading to the President's nomination, and the Senate's confirmation, of the sixth Comptroller General, Charles A. Bowsher, in 1981 and the seventh Comptroller General, David M. Walker, in 1998, and the eighth Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, in 2010.

https://www.gao.gov/about/comptroller-general/

Alan Dershowitz--Ken Starr--both on Trump's defense team.

Last time both these motherfuckers teamed up together happened in Florida--they were defending the pedophile asshole Jeffrey Epstein who got off way easy that time and was more than likely murdered in prison a few months ago. There have been stories about Dershowitz related to what Epstein was up to. Just saying.

Trump’s is the third impeachment in US history and no case has been stronger (Guardian)

In contrast with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, no chicanery was needed to ensnare Trump. He brought this on himself...

The trial of Donald Trump, which opens in earnest on Tuesday, is the third presidential impeachment in US history – and the most legitimate. For the first time, an American president will face the ultimate sanction not because he walked into a legal trap set by his opponents, or because of some broader, underlying rift in society, but because of the actual “high crimes and misdemeanors” on the charge sheet. Legally, the Senate has never confronted a stronger case for the removal of a sitting president than the one it is about to hear.

Of course, none of this means that Trump is about to be removed. But it is worth bearing in mind, as you watch 53 Republican members of the Senate – now remade as a jury, every senator having sworn an oath to “do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws” – echo the vocabulary of the accused and blithely dismiss the whole business as a “hoax” or “witch-hunt”...

Impeachment tends to come down to a bald question: has a law been broken? With Trump the answer could not be clearer...

" I don’t particularly care how it turns out."

By that, given what follows it, I guess you mean to say that, if actually proven guilty, you don't particularly care that it means Trump's removal from office.

"If President Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors then it’s time for him to go."

Otherwise, then, you apparently do care how it turns out since, after all, what kind of decent person could shrug his shoulders and say of a defendant, "Just get the trial over with--that's far more important that getting the verdict right: i.e. arriving at a just verdict." ?

(1974) "Let's put 'Watergate' behind us." "Our long national nightmare is over."

(2000) "Move on." Bush v. Gore ; state of Florida Supreme Court ruling on the recount is overturned by the U.S. supreme court despite that court's having no justified actionable cause. In the re-count matter, Florida's supreme court was, rightly, legally, the final arbiter.

Such muddle-headed thinking (as (1974) "Let's put 'Watergate' behind us" & (2000) "Move on." ) is also known as 'sweeping things under the rug.'

The U.S. system is based on the principle that it is paramount that forms and procedures be respected in order that legal matters are handled correctly and justice is done. In the U.S., "let's just get this damn thing over with" cannot have priority over "let's get this right"; it's important that important matters be done properly rather than merely that they be done one way or another.

Trump's foes have shown us in ways that are shocking that, when the chips are down, they don't really give a fuck about principles. They want their prejudices to prevail over all other considerations.

This is a disaster. Sweeping it under the rug is one of the very few ways it could actually be made worse than it already is.

Republicans whine about forms and procedures when they're being successfully deployed against them.

Let's see how Trump supporters react when Republican senators reveal their reverence for forms and procedures now that they have vowed to adhere to the impeachment trial oath administered by the Chief Justice this week.

That'll be the test of party vs. country for them. And it'll be the test for the so-called evangelical Christian supporters, since the oath binds them to

. . .in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God."

Or will those "believers" utilize the same defense Trump and Republican senators have resorted to if the Republican senators vote for acquittal the same way their House-mates did and excuse them with, "So what? It doesn't matter."

>111 proximity1:

”Sweeping it under the rug is one of the very few ways it could actually be made worse than it already is.”

I fully agree. I want nothing swept under the rug; nothing rushed to the point of side-stepping the actual evidence and applicable laws; and, I also agree with those who say that no one is above the law—even the president.

When I say that many of us just want this to be over, it’s because this entire shampeachment has been a waste of time. Dems have threatened impeachment nonstop since before President Trump was even inaugurated. They’ve jumped at every slight and insult; spent more than $30 million chasing a Russian collusion hoax initiated by Hillary Clinton; wasted weeks in secret hearings in the House SCIF; voted in favor of impeachment on an opinion rather than any actual crime; but then held the articles for weeks (hoping to find something worthy of impeachment after their vote?); and they’re still trying to delay and control the impeachment process. Enough already.

I’ve said before on P & C that, in my opinion, President Trump acted within his authority with Ukraine. It was, and is, his responsibility to ensure that U.S. funds are not diverted to unsavory corrupt entities (like…..Biden and Son).

As Senator Ted Cruz said, “Make no mistake; the Senate will give President Trump and the American people a fair trial. One that follows precedent and respects due process. Unlike the House, we will be fair, give both sides a full opportunity to present their case, and allow the President to defend himself.”

Following that process, this will be over soon. If nothing new is disclosed, President Trump will be vindicated, emerge stronger than ever, and will very likely be re-elected. Personally, I don’t want President Trump removed from office, as he’s been doing a surprisingly remarkable job as president. If something of substance comes to light which proves President Trump has abused his position (highly unlikely), a President Pence will be acceptable, too.

Regarding this impeachment, just get it done, and move on to important issues.

Text messages point to Rep. Devin Nunes in Ukraine scheme at heart of Trump impeachment
Sarah D. Wire | Jan. 18, 2020

As the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) presented a fiery defense of President Trump during impeachment hearings last month, angrily accusing Democrats of ginning up a false narrative about the president’s efforts to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival.

But newly released text messages suggest Nunes’ staff was aware of and involved in portions of the scheme, casting a new light on his combative defense.

Documents released by the House committee show repeated contact between Lev Parnas, who worked with Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Derek Harvey, an aide to Nunes on the committee, about meetings with Ukrainian prosecutors to get damaging information about Democrat Joe Biden, who is running for president, and about a debunked theory about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election.

...Nunes’ office was aware of the back-channel White House effort that has led to Trump’s impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress...

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-18/text-messages-point-to-devin-n...

After the GOP/Cult45 lets Trump get away with all of his lawless
ways, the next logical step becomes moving a throne into the Oval
Office and placing a crown on his head. That should make Trump's
voters in flyover country and swing states (and one LT member!)
very happy campers.

>113 TrippB:

"When I say that many of us just want this to be over, it’s because this entire shampeachment has been a waste of time. Dems have threatened impeachment nonstop since before President Trump was even inaugurated."

_________________________________

And that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. It's why an attitude of "Let's just let the process work out to its eventual conclusion, whatever that may be" is grotesquely ill-conceived.

At this point, unless this vital lesson is both understood and taken to heart, we now have as a standing precedent that any duly-elected president may now be impeached and put on trial in the senate for the "crime" of failing to have policy-priorities which are defined by and accord with the partisan whims of his partisan foes' ideas of "the national interest" in precisely that area, foreign affairs, which the Constitution leaves to the executive branch for the most practical of reasons.

It has already been observed by experts in history, in Constitional law and in political philosophy, that no modern president as we've known them could have survived such a standard of practice for the grounds of impeachment and removal.

An American body-politic this stupid and this ignorant, this foolish about its own political affairs has been, up to now, really rather exceptional. If this is the standard of the public's understanding of how the nation's political affairs are to be handled, then we have ahead of us an extremely bleak and relatively brief period before the systemic dysfunction we witness brings on the full ruin of the political order.

Such a future will more resemble the Cultural Revolution under Mao or Stalin's Soviet Union than the post-World War 2 history of the U.S. If Americans are "lucky", they'll "get away with" "only" a fate similar to that of any number of shit-hole nations' tin-pot dictatorships--so common in Central and South America or in Africa during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson | 9:32 PM · Jan 18, 2020:

LEV PARNAS PICTURE PARTY THREAD
( https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1218722810283069441 )

Ain't no party like a Lev Parnas picture party!
Use this thread to post all your pictures of Lev Parnas—who the GOP is terrified of having testify in Trump's Senate trial—
with GOP figures from Trump to Trump Jr., Jared Kushner to GOP leadership.

Parnas presents as a fairly intelligent man. His interviews have shown him to be measured in his speech and self-aware. It appears he was deeply involved in Republican inner circles the past couple of years. Did you see the video where he is introducing others to Trump?
No wonder he felt tossed and alone in his troubles.

The First Test for Chief Justice Roberts? McConnell's Organizing Resolution for Impeachment
Margaret Taylor | January 18, 2020, 12:31 PM

The Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials do not directly address the issue of new evidence or new testimony. Rather, they simply provide that the House managers present their case; that the president or his counsel respond; and that the presiding officer (in this case, Roberts) ... "may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate."

...If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has his way, no new evidence would be allowed. One question that will arise—as early as Tuesday—is whether Roberts agrees and how, exactly, he will handle the issue as the presiding officer.

...McConnell is seeking to pass an organizing resolution...The Senate will not consider such a resolution until Jan. 21, the day the trial begins, and McConnell has said he will not reveal the text of the resolution until next week...House managers would be prohibited from presenting new evidence. And the Senate majority leader has indicated he has 51 Republican votes to pass his resolution. But there is a question of whether such a resolution alters the existing Senate rules regarding impeachments. Normally 67 votes would be required to invoke cloture on debate—halting any filibustering and forcing senators to a vote—on a proposal to change the Senate rules.

...how this might play out: McConnell would introduce the organizing resolution and seek to pass it with 51 votes. If efforts to amend the resolution are unsuccessful, a Democratic senator would then make a point of order on the basis that 67 votes are required. And it would then be up to Roberts to rule on the point of order—presumably with the advice of the Senate parliamentarian, who will be at his side throughout the trial.

How Roberts handles this issue will likely be the first glimpse of what we can expect from Roberts in the trial going forward...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/first-test-chief-justice-roberts-mcconnells-organizi...

#118--After his arrest Parnas mentioned that he felt that John Dowd (who was Trump's lawyer and is still closely connected) was more interested in defending the President's interests than his own. Parnas wasn't willing to fall on his sword and be the fall guy and fired Dowd. He'd taken note of what happens to others of the President's friends ('I don't really know him') and really he had to pick a side and the side he was on just wanted blind loyalty. That left talking to the other side. He only had one rational and logical choice and he took it.

Trump's lawless ways are international in scope. He had one guy
offed just because he could. If what Trump did regarding Ukraine
isn't impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.

Essential arm-chair-reading for those watching the Trump-impeachment farce-and-fraud upon the nation:

(Scribners division of Simon & Schuster Publishers)

The Tyranny of Virtue: Identity, the Academy, and the Hunt for Political Heresies

(the publishers' description)

"From public intellectual and professor Robert Boyers, a thought-provoking volume of nine essays that elegantly and fiercely addresses recent developments in American culture and argues for the tolerance of difference that is at the heart of the liberal tradition.

"Written from the perspective of a liberal intellectual who has spent a lifetime as a writer, editor, and college professor, The Tyranny of Virtue is a precise and nuanced insider's look at shifts in American culture--most especially in the American academy--that so many people find alarming. Part memoir and part polemic, an anatomy of important and dangerous ideas, and a cri de coeur lamenting the erosion of standard liberal values, Boyers's collection of essays is devoted to such subjects as tolerance, identity, privilege, appropriation, diversity, and ableism that have turned academic life into a minefield. Why, Robert Boyers asks, are a great many liberals, people who should know better, invested in the drawing up of enemies lists and driven by the conviction that on critical issues no dispute may be tolerated? In stories, anecdotes, and character profiles, a public intellectual and longtime professor takes on those in his own progressive cohort who labor in the grip of a poisonous and illiberal fundamentalism. The end result is a finely tuned work of cultural intervention from the front lines.

ISBN: 9781982127183
Author: Robert Boyers
Publisher: Scribner Book Company
Hardcover
Publication Date: September 24, 2019

#113 Dems have threatened impeachment nonstop since before President Trump was even inaugurated.

This isn't even an argument, it's a whine. Wah, wah, the Democrats don't like Trump. If you can't come up with an argument that actually addresses the facts instead of your feelings then don't bother us with your whining.

Alan Dershowitz comments on impeachment (Larry King Live, 8/24/98)--
when it was Bill Clinton who was being impeached... (Trump also has Clinton investigator Ken Starr on his legal team.)

DERSHOWITZ: “It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.”

1: 19 ( https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1219058380431642624 )

But 44% of Americans regard Trump as doing well enough in office to merit their approval.(1)

According to Trump's partisan foes, Americans failed in the first instance to get things "right" when they elected Trump to office (under the routinely used rules of the Electoral college system) and, now, they appear poised to get it "wrong" again, a second time, despite Democrats voting articles of impeachment--designed to make it completely clear to voters that Trump's political opponents do not at all approve of his remaining in office--despite this clearly-expressed veiw, Americans seem about to fail again: fail, this time, to see Trump as deserving of impeachment, trial and removal from office.

Numerous Democrats have openly expressed their fear that, unless he is convicted and removed from office, Trump shall probably defeat any of the current Democratic party contenders for the party's nomination as candidate in the presidential election in November of this year.

Trump's approval ratings have been consistently higher than those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi since she organized the House impeachment on a vote that garnered not only no Republicans at all but also failed to win the assent of even the totality of the Democratic party members of the House of Representatives.

Democrats seem to be in hopes of winning control of both the Senate and the House in the 2020 elections so that they can attempt a second impeachment, trial and conviction of Trump--that is, following his re-election to office, for, you see, the Democrats simply have no faith in the prospects of American voters, given a second chance to vote the right way (i.e. choosing their Democratic party nominee over Trump), actually doing that.

Perhaps a national emergency should be declared so that the November election may be cancelled in order to prevent such an electoral disaster from being repeated--would that not be both the best and safest course, since, clearly, Americans are failing to do their duty at the ballot box?, Am I right? (Democrats could then re-calculate the Senate's majority of the membership, taking into account the Senate Republicans who've announced their impending departure at the end of the current Congress and perhaps show that they constitute a new majority in that chamber. In that case, they might vote to overturn the previous Senate's decision to acquit President Trump and hold a second vote to convict him of the charges brought against him in the two articles of impeachment.)

Unless American voters can demonstrate that they can, given a second chance, be trusted to use the electoral system responsibly, Democrats may have no other choice but to eliminate elections and rule by decree until such time as it is once more safe to allow Americans to mark and cast a ballot.

_____________________

"Forty-four percent of Americans approve of the job that President Trump is doing as commander in chief days before his Senate impeachment trial is set to begin, according to a new Gallup poll.

"Trump’s approval rating has remained steady in recent weeks, hovering between 43 percent and 45 percent since late November, according to the survey giant. The president’s approval rating was slightly lower at the start of the impeachment process in the House, which began in late September, hovering between 39 percent and 43 percent."
_________________

(The Hill (Washington, D.C.)) ( Trump job approval steady ahead of impeachment trial: Gallup | By Morgan Chalfant - 01/20/20 07:34 AM EST )

__________________

ETA:

(The Washington Examiner) Majority oppose convicting and removing Trump as impeachment trial set to start: Poll | by Madison Dibble
| January 20, 2020 09:46 AM
______________________

"Most people do not want to see President Trump convicted during the Senate impeachment trial, according to a new Gallup poll.

"More than half of respondents reported that they did not want Trump removed from office, with 51% opposing conviction and 46% supporting the president’s removal. Democratic respondents were more likely to support convicting Trump, with 86% supporting his removal. Independents were split on the issue. Forty-nine percent of independents supported conviction, while 46% opposed his removal. Just 7% of Republican respondents supported convicting Trump.

"Approval for Trump’s conviction is higher than that of Bill Clinton. When Clinton’s impeachment was delivered to the Senate, just 33% supported his conviction and removal from office. The gap in support for conviction comes mostly from the partisan divide. Both presidents had minimal support for removal from within the party, but Clinton only had support for conviction from 65% of Republicans, compared to 86% of Democrats supporting Trump’s removal.

"The chaotic impeachment process began in September, but since then, Trump’s approval rating has remained steady. The poll revealed that Trump sits at 44% approval, dipping just one percentage point since the House passed the articles of impeachment. His current approval rating also shows a full recovery from his approval rating drop in September, when just 39% approved of his job performance." ... ...

________________

>123 jjwilson61:
Were you having a bad day there, JJ?

"If you can't come up with an argument that actually addresses the facts..."

Fact: Dems have threatened impeachment nonstop since before President Trump was even inaugurated. Not a whine or an argument; just an observation.

#126 But how is that relevant? It doesn't speak at all to the question of whether Trump did the things he's accused of. It's just an ad hominem attack that distracts from the real issue.

Think about it. If that's a valid argument then is there anything Trump could do that would merit impeachment? He could shoot someone dead on 5th avenue and the Republicans would just excuse it because the Democrats had been calling for his impeachment since he was elected. Does that make any sense?

#124--Dershowitz kind of like Giuliani is pretty much a self serving and attention seeking POS. Both he and his opinions are for sale. The contradiction between opinions now and then and the controversy to be gained from that are very sellable to the 24-7 media. He also knows that something can be argued in multiple directions and argued credibly even if they're bullshit. He's an actor and a grifter and he loves the spotlight and loves TV time.

>127 jjwilson61:

"LOL"!

Interestingly enough, were Trump to "shoot someone dead on 5th avenue," that, unlike what Democrats have alleged (no Republicans in the House supported the passage of the articles of impeachment), actually constitutes a criminal act!

Too bad Democrats couldn't come up with one of those involving Trump despite their tying themselves in ridiculous knots in the process of trying.

U.S. House of Representatives Files Replication to President’s Answer to the Articles of Impeachment
House Judiciary Dems | Jan 20
4 min read

https://medium.com/housejudiciary/u-s-house-of-representatives-files-replication...

Notice, folks, how right wing nut jobs continue to hide behind legal criminal trial requirements being the standard for legal impeachment trial validation. Should be comical, but for it actually being willful stubborn stupidity.

With Dersh shouting, "The president did nothing wrong," at every passing microphone, in the vain hope of convincing the majority of Americans who maintain the corrupt conman has got to go otherwise.

At the same time, Mitch McTurtle is committed to making the case he should be committed. Almost 70% of Americans want the Senate to call witnesses to get the full truth that the Republicans are determined to stifle by conducting a Soviet-style show trial sans witnesses, sans fairness, sans impartiality, and sans honor to their oath.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-poll-impeachment-101245

If Trump ever finds himself on 5th Ave. with a gun in his hand, he might as well shoot McTurtle, the man who practically single handedly is hell-bent on murdering the GOP. No one will blame him.

Excuse me. I gotta go get ready for tomorrow and make some popcorn.

Never mind the American people, how can senators be attentive to details of evidence and defense noon to midnight, four days in a row?
Rely on young staff, I guess?

(Glenn) Kirschner: McConnell attempting to bury impeachment hearing in 'dead of night' to hide unfairness (1:27)
Craig Melvin | Jan. 20, 2020

Senate Majority McConnell is expected to allot a total of 24 hours per side for opening statements, but the time must be used in 2 working days, 2 Republican sources familiar with proposal say. MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner (former federal prosecutor) explains what those rules could mean for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

https://www.msnbc.com/craig-melvin/watch/kirschner-mcconnell-attempting-to-bury-...

Tom Winter (NBC) @Tom_Winter | 3:59 PM · Jan 20, 2020:

NEW: Lev Parnas' attorney has written to Attorney General William Barr requesting that the AG recuse himself from the Parnas investigation and prosecution and asks for the appointment of a special prosecutor, according to a court filing.

MORE: The letter from Parnas' attorney to Barr was apparently faxed today.

The letter says that discovery being returned to Parnas was delayed by prosecutors in NY but doesn't say that some of that discovery was delayed because Parnas' phone was locked.

MORE: The letter states that Parnas' discovery was delayed making it difficult for Parnas to respond to Congressional investigators.

What it doesn't say is that Parnas got that subpoena before his arrest and could've complied then, instead he made plans to leave the country.

Latest details from the letter -- which was faxed -- earlier today:

Giuliani associate Lev Parnas asks Attorney General Barr to recuse himself from his case
Tom Winter | Jan. 20, 2020, 4:41 PM EST
The letter was sent days after Parnas spoke publicly for the first time about his role helping Rudy Giuliani push Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden....
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/giuliani-associate-lev-parna...

(© 1941 Columbia Pictures / (Wikipedia) "An Ache in Every Stake")

The Three Stooges (L. to R.) Curly Howard, Moe Howard, Larry Fine.

"Curly, Moe & Larry Bake an 'Impeachment Cake'"

LOL!

(Politico) Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show | Unredacted material shows he may have referred to the wrong "Mr. Z." | By MELANIE ZANONA | 01/21/2020 07:46 PM EST

______________

"House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff appears to have mischaracterized a text message exchange between two players in the Ukraine saga, according to documents obtained by POLITICO — a possible error the GOP will likely criticize as another example of the Democrats’ rushed effort to impeach President Donald Trump.

"The issue arose when Schiff (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas 'continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky,' citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani: 'trying to get us mr Z.' The remainder of the exchange — which was attached to Schiff’s letter — was redacted.

"But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states: 'mr Z answers my brother.' That suggests Parnas was referring to Zlochevsky not Zelensky." ... ...

That guy, you know, the one impeached for obstruction of justice:

Trump Brags About Concealing Impeachment Evidence: ‘We Have All the Material, They Don’t’
Peter Wade | Jan 22, 2020

President Trump said he’s happy with the way the impeachment trial is going thus far because his administration has not released “materials” that would hurt his cause.

“When we released that conversation all hell broke out with the Democrats,” Trump said. “Because they said, ‘Wait a minute, this is much different than what Adam Schiff told us.’ ”

The president continued, “So, we’re doing very well. I got to watch the impeachment trial enough. I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.”

...here, rather astonishingly, Trump seems to be flatly admitting to withholding evidence...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-impeachment-evidence-w...

https://twitter.com/RepValDemings/status/1220017702011535364

Trump’s lawyers began the impeachment trial with a blizzard of lies
Aaron Rupar@atrupar | Jan 21, 2020

The opening statements from Trump’s lawyers indicated that gaslighting will be a key part of their strategy.

Falsehood No. 1: Trump’s lawyers claimed Republicans didn’t have access to key information during House impeachment inquiry

Falsehood No. 2: Schiff “manufactured” Trump’s comments during the July Zelensky call

Sekulow’s opening statement, which served as an extended complaint about process, also managed to mangle the facts (he claimed House Democrats delayed transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a longer period of time than was actually the case) and mischaracterize the impeachment process (he said Trump “was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses” during the House inquiry when, in fact, the White House declined to do so)...

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/21/21075791/trump-impeachment-lawyers-jay-sekulow-pat...
_______________________________________________________

Some think strategy is to draw Dem "prosecutors" into debunking lies.

_______________________________________________________
Also--

Adam Parkhomenko @AdamParkhomenko | 12:01 PM · Jan 22, 2020:

Lawyers are prohibited under the code of ethics from making false statements to a tribunal or court.
Someone should file ethics charges to have Cipollone and Sekulow disciplined by the bar.
Bet they are members of the bar of the Supreme Court and/or the Federal Court in DC.

OMB releases trove of Ukraine aid documents to American Oversight

...The documents were released just before midnight, two minutes before the deadline, after American Oversight made a "request for directives and communications that may relate to any effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate one of President Trump's political opponents as part of an effort to give the president an electoral advantage," the nonpartisan oversight watchdog said.

...American Oversight's executive director Austin Evers said in a statement, "President Trump's lawyers stood in the Senate on Tuesday arguing that documents are totally unnecessary for the impeachment trial, but these documents give lie to that entire position."

..."Despite the Trump Administration's obstruction and the rhetoric at the trial, the public can now see even more evidence of the president's corrupt scheme as it unfolded in real time. The volume of material released, and the volume of material still secreted away, only highlights how much the administration has withheld from the House, the Senate, and the American public." ...

https://www.axios.com/omb-releases-ukraine-aid-data-american-oversight-d9ba8e29-...

#136--on the contention that Schiff manufactured Trump's so called phone transcript. IMO congressman Schiff was more lawyerly there than he needed to be framing a narrative as a lawyer might frame a story in a criminal trial. I get what Schiff was trying to do but IMO Trump and his team have only used Schiff's creative take to bullshit and bluster and use it as a way of distracting attention away from the facts and also as a way of appealing to his base for sympathy.

When there's no need to be extra-creative the democrats should restrain themselves from that....and Schiff could have as easily just read the so called transcript out verbatim which was hardly 'a perfect phone call' more like perfectly damning. Keep things as simple and direct as possible--that IMO will work best. Don't give away ammo.

LOL! The House Democratic party's impeachment case "managers" are clueless fucking morons.

11 futile and stupid trial-rules amendments offered up, 11 said amendments shot down on a strict party-line vote. But, then, Democrats have made it absolutely clear that there shall be nothing, but nothing "bi-partisan" about this impeachment or trial.

So, they, with the utmost high dudgeon, went to the village well, and they proceeded ceremoniously to take turns pissing in it; and then made a floor-motion that their opponents all drink liberally from the results.

Their motion failed. Big surprise--but only to themeslves.

Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi and Nadler: the devil take you one and all into the bowels of Hell.

__________________________

Since the Senate trial of the impeachment articles began, polling shows a marked increase in the percentage of those opposed to conviction or removal.




Tulsi Gabbard has filed a suit against Hillary Clinton for defamation in the U.S. district court for the southern district of New York seeking 50m USD in damages and other relief. Go!, Tusli!

Chris Murphy (US Sen D-CT) @ChrisMurphyCT | 1:58 AM · Jan 22, 2020:
1/ It’s 2am, but it’s never too late for transparency. So, as promised, here are my behind the scenes impressions from the Tue/Wed impeachment proceedings.

2/ I sit in the front row, so I’m right on top of the impeachment managers. They are crammed into a tight space, and my first thought is that I’m going to be spending a lot of time looking at the back of Rep. Jason Crow’s head for the next 2 weeks.

3/ Cipollone’s opener is deflating. His casualness with the truth reflects his boss (he says, for instance, that the House depositions excluded Republicans). I whisper to @timkaine during a break that the POTUS strategy may be to just force the House managers to chase their lies.

4/ During another break, a Republican who is tempted to vote for witnesses later in the trial flags me down to warn that too many votes on witnesses tonight might scare off other like minded Republicans. I hear my colleague out. I want to keep these lines of communication open.

5/ The contrast between the preparedness of the House managers and the POTUS team is striking. Schiff and his team carefully build their case w prepared remarks choreographed with video. Cipollone and his lawyers seem to be winging it mostly. Kind of wild to watch.

6/ As it gets late, both sides start to get overly chippy and personal. I’m alarmed at how often the parties are directly addressing each other. Neither the managers nor the President’s lawyers are on trial. Trump is.

7/ It’s so heartbreaking to spend all night enduring Republicans’ stonewalling of a fair trial. We lose every single roll call, even the one to just give the managers more than 120 minutes to provide written responses to motions. McConnell keeps his folks in line on every vote.

8/ We wrap at 2am. McConnell could have sent us home at a reasonable hour and reconvened Wednesday, but he’s happy to have as much of this trial happen in the dead of night as possible. Get ready for more of this.

Ok, I’m off to get a few hours of sleep.

___________________________________________________________________________

Chris Murphy @ChrisMurphyCT | 12:05 AM · Jan 23, 2020
1a/ You cannot use the massive powers of the Oval Office to destroy your political rivals. FYI.

1b/ Time for tonight’s behind the scenes rundown of today’s impeachment proceedings.

2/ All the other crises don’t stop for impeachment. I spent the morning at the CBS News bureau talking about Trump’s dangerous failure to be straight w America about the intel and injuries surrounding the Iran strikes.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy slams Trump for downplaying injuries in Iran attack
"There's smart, dedicated, patriotic people at the Department of Defense who allowed for that lie to be told to all of us for weeks," Murphy told CBS News.
cbsnews.com

3/ I spend a little time catching up w the pages as the trial begins. They are high schoolers who spend a semester working in the Senate. This is exam week so they got home at 3am last night and had an exam first thing this a.m.. So I have no right to complain about being tired.

4/ Milk is the big news today. Senate rules allow Senators to have water or milk at their desks, and today Senators (including my seat mate @ewarren
) are going w milk. I stick w flat water (and a secret Diet Mtn Dew in the back room fridge).

5/ I’m thinking today, as I look across to the Republican side, how many of these Senators campaigned hard against Trump in the primary. So many of them warned how out of control he would be.

And now they are readying to green light his corruption. Corruption they saw coming.

6/ Schiff and the managers are kicking ass. So prepared. Such good storytellers. Their use of video is especially sharp. I wonder if some of my GOP colleagues are seeing this Sondland and Taylor testimony for the first time.

7/ I let @ewarren on to my new impeachment trick. During the short breaks, unwrap a few hard candies and put them in your desk drawer. That way you avoid the noise of unwrapping them when you sneak one mid-trial.

8/ I’m struck by how good speech cadences can make long remarks much easier to listen to. @RepJeffries
and @RepValDemings are especially good at varying their pacing as they go along. They are both impressive speakers.

9/ Finally, today was the day that I became part of the trial. Around 8pm @RepZoeLofgren
puts the notes of my September meeting w Zelensky into the record. I’m part of history now.

Night!

The damning new evidence about the Zelensky phone call
Anne Milgram | January 23, 2020

(CNN)At President Donald Trump's Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, the House managers stressed, as they did Tuesday, the need to subpoena relevant witnesses and documents for the trial. But their arguments took on a new power and urgency on the heels of Tuesday's release of critical new evidence showing that White House officials were preparing to halt the release of almost $400 million in military aid to Ukraine on July 24, the day before the President's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/opinions/impeachment-evidence-planned-effort-with...

Ian Millhiser at Vox writes on the background of "high crimes and misdemeanors"

The glaring problem in Trump’s legal argument against impeachment

...that phrase had an expansive meaning when it was written into the Constitution.

As Justice Joseph Story explained in 1833, “there are many offences, purely political, which have been held to be within the reach of parliamentary impeachments, not one of which is, in the slightest manner, alluded to in the statute books.”

Public officials may find novel ways of violating the public trust that Congress did not think to criminalize first. But that should not force the nation to leave those officials in office. As Story explained, “political offences are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not almost absurd to attempt it.”
…
Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a seminal legal text that American judges rely on to this day, defined the term “high misdemeanor” to include “maladministration.” As a member of Congress, James Madison argued that a president could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.” An 1828 dictionary defined “misdemeanors” to include “ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.”
…
Impeachments of any kind are rare in American history — before Trump, just 19 federal officials were impeached, most of them judges. But this short list of impeachments includes some officials who were removed for non-criminal activity. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz note in To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, “the first successful judicial impeachments of the twentieth century—Judge Robert Archbald (1913) and Judge Halsted Ritter (1936)—both involved misconduct that didn’t break any criminal laws.”

Archbald was removed from office for participating in business transactions with litigants before his court. Ritter was impeached on a variety of charges, including an allegation that he took a kickback to appoint a former partner as a bankruptcy receiver. Ultimately, however, he was only convicted on a vague charge of “general misbehavior and conduct that brought his court into scandal and disrepute.”

Indeed, Congress may even impeach and remove an official based on charges that a court already rejected. As Tribe and Matz point out in their book, the Senate convicted and removed Judge Alcee Hastings (now a member of the House) in 1989 for conspiring to take bribes, even though Hastings was acquitted of the same charges in a criminal trial.

Chris Murphy @ChrisMurphyCT | 12:14 PM · Jan 23, 2020:

Just left the secure room having read the classified document regarding VP Pence’s Sept 18 call w Zelensky.

1. Nothing in it is classified. It should be made part of the public record immediately.

2. Hiding evidence of wrongdoing through bogus classification is unacceptable.

Worth a listen...
U.S. Senate | Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump (8:32--Adam Schiff's concluding remarks on Thursday)
https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1220559375938609152

Adam Schiff @RepAdamSchiff | 11:10 PM · Jan 23, 2020:
Donald Trump must be convicted and removed from office.
Because he will always choose his own personal interest over our national interest.
Because in America, right matters. Truth matters.
If not, no Constitution can protect us.
If not, we are lost.

_____________________________________________________

Igor Bobic (Huff Post) @igorbobic | 11:35 PM · Jan 23, 2020:
Schiff’s closing, where he asked if senators had confidence that Trump would pick national interest over himself, was probably the most interesting moment so far of Dem arguments.

Chamber was dead silent and focused on him - didn’t see a single conversation on GOP side.

A @POTUS confidant tells CBS News that GOP senators were warned: “vote against the president & your head will be on a pike.”
https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/1220491412854185984

CBS Evening News @CBSEveningNews | 6:40 PM · Jan 23, 2020:
In opening statements, House managers examined the debunked conspiracy theories invoked by Pres. Trump.

A @POTUS confidant tells CBS News that GOP senators were warned: “vote against the president & your head will be on a pike.”

Here's @nancycordes
https://cbsn.ws/2GhfYkX

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ..."Admits FISA Warrants Against Carter Page Were ‘Not Valid’ "

___________________________

... "the FBI had submitted 'unsupported' information when it applied to eavesdrop on Page. Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in mid-December, 'The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.' The court directed the FBI to report back by end of the month on what steps it was taking to fix the problems."

....

... the FBI omitted from the court key details that undercut its original premise about Page, who has denied any wrongdoing and was never charged as part of the investigation into any ties between Russia and the Trump campaign."

To say that the F.B.I.'s representations to the F.I.S. Court "turned out to be unsupported" misses the key point--which is that the F.B.I. deliberately deceived the court, deliberately presented claims as 'supported' when it knew or should have known that the claims were not supported.

In other words, the F.B.I. lied to the court.

Inspiring remembrance ~

I am grateful that GOP reps in 1974 honored their oaths of
office by refusing to follow Nixon down the rabbit hole of
lawlessness.

CNN Politics @CNNPolitics · 11h (1/24/2020)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a key GOP vote, questions House Democrats' decision not to go to court over impeachment-related subpoenas
https://cnn.it/2sU0qAD

Renato Mariotti (former fed prosecutor, CNN) @renato_mariotti 1:38 AM · Jan 24, 2020:
If Democrats went to court and waited on that process, their inquiry wouldn’t have been completed until after the 2020 election.

(margd: but if Senate issues subpoenas and USSC Chief Justice John Roberts signs them...)

Mr. Parnas knows of what he speaks! (Lordy, there are tapes!)

'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired
Katherine Faulders, John Santucci, Allison Pecorin and Olivia Rubin | January 24, 2020, 11:09 AM

A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York.

...the recording was made (by Fruman) during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

..."Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it."...

... Parnas appears to say: "The biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we gotta get rid of the ambassador. She's still left over from the Clinton administration," Parnas can be heard telling Trump. "She's basically walking around telling everybody 'Wait, he's gonna get impeached, just wait." (Yovanovitch actually had served in the State Department since the Reagan administration.)

...It was not until a year later that Yovanovitch was recalled from her position -- in April 2019. She said the decision was based on “unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives” that she was disloyal to Trump.

..."Boy I'm so powerful I can intimidate the entire Ukrainian government,” Giuliani messaged Parnas in May 2019. “Please don't tell anyone I can't get the crooked Ambassador fired or I did three times and she's still there.”

...Parnas publicly recounted his memories of the scene at the dinner and said that Trump turned to John DeStefano, who was his deputy chief of staff at the time, and said "Fire her," he claimed.

“We all, there was a silence in the room. He responded to him, said Mr. President, we can't do that right now because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hasn't been confirmed yet, that Pompeo is not confirmed yet and we don't have -- this is when former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was gone, but Pompeo was confirmed, so they go, wait until -- so several conversations he mentioned it again.“

However, Pompeo had been confirmed and privately sworn in days earlier.

A copy of the recording is now in the custody of federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinner-u...

>147 Molly3028:

"I am grateful that GOP reps in 1974 honored their oaths of office by refusing to follow Nixon down the rabbit hole of lawlessness."

"Remembrance"?

To which oaths do you refer there?

>149 margd:

So? So what? What's the point there supposed to be?

Prox

The oaths taken before GOPers began worshipping at the alter of
a life-long con man/cult personality.

>151 Molly3028:

does not clarify for us what this is supposed to mean:

>147 Molly3028: "honored their oaths of office by refusing to follow Nixon down the rabbit hole of lawlessness"

???

So, again : what oath are Republicans today supposedly failing to honor that, back "in 1974," "GOP reps honored" ?

Lots of opinions here, plenty of assumptions, presumptions, and attempts at mind-reading. So few proven facts, though:

"I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you, gentlemen—Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact." - John Adams