Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4001  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:28 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,254
John Bolton is a tease.

Amy Fiscus, NYT:
Quote:
John Bolton knows about many meetings and conversations on Ukraine that House investigators haven’t heard about yet, his lawyer says
ETA: Or his lawyer is.

Last edited by Walken After Midnight; 11-08-2019 at 02:29 PM.
  #4002  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:31 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think you should go on, because in none of those cases do I see a judgement or admission of wrongdoing, much less personal wrongdoing or proof of conning.

I could not immediately find the court order for the university settlement (thanks USA Today for leaving out a citation), but it was a settlement and I think it would have made the news if there was an admission or finding of wrongdoing even by civil standards. Yes, the Attorney General of New York said it was a fraud. But that's the prosecutor! Of course they are going to say it's a victory and a fraud - that is not a fact, it is an allegation, and one that NY gave up on pursuing.

The charity was shut down as another settlement, with the both parties claiming a victory. The Washington Post focused mostly on the allegations of the prosecution, probably because they are true. But as a matter of fact, that has not been established.

And then the New York Times piece is one big allegation, not tried by any finder of fact.

I don't live under a rock, and I'm not trying to be apologetic or even supportive of Mr. Trump. Of course I think it is likely that Mr. Trump is a serial conman. I just don't think that's a fact in evidence, certainly not one decided by courts.


Well, calling it murder is sort of jumping the gun, isn't it? If all of the people I know tell me that a man dressed in all black will come under the dead of night and break into my house and rape my family, I can use that in court to support my theory of self defense when a man dressed in black did come under the dead of night, ignored my warnings, failed to identify himself, got shot and killed...


No, it doesn't. I'm in favor of eg: the Supreme Court evaluating the claim of privilege in camera, provided Congress asks them to and has some reasonable suspicion that the privilege is being abused.

~Max
Well he was pushing to initiate an investigation of Biden and his son by holding back public money. So he is committing the crime of extortion.

The "fighting corruption" defense would depend on his intent and how it was manifest. One good clue is that he did it in secret and hid the transcript.

If he is not "fighting corruption" in any other context or venue then he loses the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn't mention "corruption" in the call, then he loses the BOTD.

I say this based on prior behaviors by all presidents. You are missing the forest for the trees IMO. The call was corrupt in it's conception. Trying to engineer a hindsight explanation involving his concern about the world? Do you really think that deserves the benefit of the doubt? It's too late for these explanations to have any weight.
  #4003  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:32 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
John Bolton is a tease.

Amy Fiscus, NYT:

ETA: Or his lawyer is.
Or his literary agent.
  #4004  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:35 PM
Paranoid Randroid's Avatar
Paranoid Randroid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
And I lamented that they preempted Gilligan's Island. I can remember so vividly asking my mother wtf was going on.

My employer hires a bunch of kids straight out of college and, occasionally, it makes me feel a little old by comparison. Well, all I have to do to feel young is to drop by the SDMB for a few minutes every now and again ...
  #4005  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:36 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 18,895
I remember watching the hearings on the back porch, as my mom ironed. I was 13.

Would this thread be the right place to discuss the difference in public sentiment/congressional behavior between now and then?

As I recall it, in 73 Repubs in Congress were not so unified, expressing an unwillingness to even CONSIDER guilt. Not were the Dems unified in pursuing impeachment/conviction. I did not perceive and do not recall Americans being so clearly divided. It seemed as tho at least a good portion of citizens/reps respected the process and were interested in the evidence.

Not - not so much.

Am I correct in my recollection of 73? If so, ho how do people explain the change? It really is disheartening to think that so many of us have become so solidified in our beliefs/prejudices, and so disrespectful of our public institutions, but I'm hard pressed to find an alternative explanation.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #4006  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:51 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The fact that the President was elected by the states is a big factor in weighing the importance of his position. I don't particularly care if the President loses his job, I care that the states(/people) are disenfranchised. But I am making the same argument across two threads, and I invite you to join us in the debate thread.

~Max
The main population of disenfranchised in the US are those who voted against trump, for hillary, all 65,853,514 of us.

We get lectured about how it was our fault, about how if we don't treat the trumpers with enough care, and concern for their feelings, they are going to bring the world down.

We have to invent ways to not alienate them, when they just want to see our tears?

I think that we have let this run too long without enforcing subpeonas and legal showdowns. We have given life to evil in the machine by letting this run on for so long.

PS: You sure like directing traffic around to these discussions.

Last edited by drad dog; 11-08-2019 at 02:52 PM.
  #4007  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:12 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
Schiff himself said the summary “was meant to be at least part in parody." And it clearly was partly parody. His summary was this*:
Quote:
It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.
"I'm only going to say this seven times" and a few other lines are obvious parody. But he also clearly set it up as a characterization and not as quoting, so I have no blame for him at all. The Trump propaganda side is happy to strip things of context and twist them to serve their purposes. That's on them. This wasn't some gaffe on Schiff's part, and I'm sure we could find many examples of similar summary/parodies by Republicans. It's a common enough rhetorical device.

* Quoted from here: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/sc...umps-response/
Boo THAT’S a transcript (of what Schiff said). Maybe people ought to be reading that...
  #4008  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:18 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 86,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Every president is elected....
Gerald Ford, Line 1.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was asked at a public forum in Cleveland earlier today which I attended if there were any of his Republican colleagues in the Senate who might, given the evidence now before the public, vote to convict and remove the President from office in a Senate impeachment trial. He said he personally knew of only one who might, but said it was just possible, if unlikely, that others might also, if even more damning evidence comes to light. He didn't sound confident of it, though.

Last edited by Elendil's Heir; 11-08-2019 at 03:19 PM.
  #4009  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:19 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
The judgement included an admission of wrongdoing. So, everything you wrote is irrelevant. He admitted he ran a fraudulent charity.

"The settlement, which was finalized last month and announced on Thursday in the judge’s order, included a detailed admission of misconduct that is rare for the president, who has long employed a scorched-earth approach toward fighting lawsuits."
I was wondering why I hadn't noticed this, but apparently this is a brand new development. Anyways, going by the New York Times, I would have to concede the argument. Therefore I looked up the actual case.

Contrary to your assertion, and unfortunately contrary to the reporting of the New York Times, Judge Scarpulla takes care to note that Mr. Trump shall pay $2 million as part of the settlement for "allegedly improper use of the Foundation and distribution of the Funds received by the Foundation" (emphasis mine). Perhaps there really was an admission of wrongdoing in the October 1 stipulation, but I could not find a copy of that to read. Judge Scarpulla only references "factual admissions" that the Trump Campaign handled the money instead of the Foundation, but it was eventually disbursed to charities anyways. From what I can tell wrongdoing had not been established as a fact.

The index number is 451130-2018 in SCROLL (http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/).

It is possible that I am misinterpreting this though, I'm not a lawyer.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 11-08-2019 at 03:21 PM. Reason: expanded on factual admissions
  #4010  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:23 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,985
So if the 2 million dollars is not for wrong doing, then what the hell is it for?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #4011  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:24 PM
dontbesojumpy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think you should go on, because in none of those cases do I see a judgement or admission of wrongdoing, much less personal wrongdoing or proof of conning.

~Max
While I'm expressly not accusing you of anything whatsoever--let that be clear--I just wanted to make sure you were self-aware of this trope and tactic, simply for your own edification.

Last edited by dontbesojumpy; 11-08-2019 at 03:26 PM.
  #4012  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:36 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I was wondering why I hadn't noticed this, but apparently this is a brand new development. Anyways, going by the New York Times, I would have to concede the argument. Therefore I looked up the actual case.

Contrary to your assertion, and unfortunately contrary to the reporting of the New York Times, Judge Scarpulla takes care to note that Mr. Trump shall pay $2 million as part of the settlement for "allegedly improper use of the Foundation and distribution of the Funds received by the Foundation" (emphasis mine). Perhaps there really was an admission of wrongdoing in the October 1 stipulation, but I could not find a copy of that to read. Judge Scarpulla only references "factual admissions" that the Trump Campaign handled the money instead of the Foundation, but it was eventually disbursed to charities anyways. From what I can tell wrongdoing had not been established as a fact.

The index number is 451130-2018 in SCROLL (http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/).

It is possible that I am misinterpreting this though, I'm not a lawyer.

~Max
Are you reading the stipulation? I can't cut and paste, but read the factual stipulations, including about how he got his foundation to pay $10,000 for a portrait of him, which he had hung at one of his hotels, and then had his hotel pay his foundation $185 for rental fees. Trump stipulates that this is true.

Now, Trump is constitutionally incapable (and the lack of capitalization is deliberate) of admitting fault, so he doesn't admit that this shit is illegal or wrong. But he admits he did it.

The question then becomes, "If you admit you did a thing, and if the thing you did is wrong, but you don't admit the thing you did is wrong, is that an admission of wrongdoing?"

But that question is boring as shit. Why would I fret over whether a sociopath like Trump is once again incapable of seeing that shitting the bed is wrong?
  #4013  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:43 PM
Running with Scissors is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
But that question is boring as shit. Why would I fret over whether a sociopath like Trump is once again incapable of seeing that shitting the bed is wrong?
On the other hand, pissing the bed is perfectly OK, at least if done in Russia.
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel
  #4014  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:20 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,093
OK so I get why Schiff wants to move forward with the impeachment and not wait for subpoenas of Bolton and other no-shows to work their through the courts, but I don't understand why are they dropping the cases altogether? To do so basically establishes the Executive branches right to ignore any requests for oversight going forward. Even if the current investigation is going to probably be over by the time they could jump though the final appeal required to get administration officials to show up, continuing the process will get the wheels in motion so that when the next flagrant abuse of power from the administration comes down, the groundwork will be set to force compliance, rather then wait several months starting from scratch. If nothing else it will hopefully stop future administrations from following the Trump model.
  #4015  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:28 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
OK so I get why Schiff wants to move forward with the impeachment and not wait for subpoenas of Bolton and other no-shows to work their through the courts, but I don't understand why are they dropping the cases altogether? To do so basically establishes the Executive branches right to ignore any requests for oversight going forward. Even if the current investigation is going to probably be over by the time they could jump though the final appeal required to get administration officials to show up, continuing the process will get the wheels in motion so that when the next flagrant abuse of power from the administration comes down, the groundwork will be set to force compliance, rather then wait several months starting from scratch. If nothing else it will hopefully stop future administrations from following the Trump model.
Because they already have a case filed that's much further along addressing the identical issue from the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to Don McGahn. Once they have a ruling on that, it will apply to all these other Trump henchmen who are ignoring subpoenas, and it will be resolved much faster than any new cases filed by the Intelligence Committee.
  #4016  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:34 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,093
OK thanks, ignorance fought. I feel much somewhat better.
  #4017  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:36 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Because they already have a case filed that's much further along addressing the identical issue from the Judiciary Committee's subpoena to Don McGahn. Once they have a ruling on that, it will apply to all these other Trump henchmen who are ignoring subpoenas, and it will be resolved much faster than any new cases filed by the Intelligence Committee.
AP:
Quote:
Bolton lawyer Charles Cooper was in federal court Thursday on behalf of another client whose testimony the House also wants.

That client is former Bolton deputy Charles Kupperman, who wants a federal judge to resolve whether he can be forced to testify since he was a close adviser to Trump.

Cooper says Bolton could be added to the case. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon says he hopes to issue a ruling by late December.
There's a Washington Post article from yesterday titled: "Charles Kupperman subpoena withdrawn by House as it asks judge to dismiss lawsuit over his testimony" [subscription needed]

Last edited by Walken After Midnight; 11-08-2019 at 04:38 PM.
  #4018  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:55 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
While I'm expressly not accusing you of anything whatsoever--let that be clear--I just wanted to make sure you were self-aware of this trope and tactic, simply for your own edification.
Having now read about that tactic which you are not accusing me of, which I was unfamiliar with and only heard about in passing on these boards, I have formed an opinion of it that someone who thinks I am "sealioning" probably won't agree with or appreciate.

I don't know how else to respond except that I'm trying to argue in good faith.

~Max
  #4019  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:16 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
AP:
There's a Washington Post article from yesterday titled: "Charles Kupperman subpoena withdrawn by House as it asks judge to dismiss lawsuit over his testimony" [subscription needed]
This case is the one to which I'm referring, before U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Politico) There is a mention of Kupperman's case and how the McGahn and Kupperman cases may interact toward the end of the piece.

Quote:
Kupperman’s suit is before another District Court judge in Washington, Richard Leon, who held the first hearing in that case in a courtroom just down the hall as the arguments before Jackson were playing out. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush, is not obliged to follow any decision Jackson issues, but would likely explain any disagreement.
  #4020  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:17 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Are you reading the stipulation? I can't cut and paste, but read the factual stipulations, including about how he got his foundation to pay $10,000 for a portrait of him, which he had hung at one of his hotels, and then had his hotel pay his foundation $185 for rental fees. Trump stipulates that this is true.

Now, Trump is constitutionally incapable (and the lack of capitalization is deliberate) of admitting fault, so he doesn't admit that this shit is illegal or wrong. But he admits he did it.

The question then becomes, "If you admit you did a thing, and if the thing you did is wrong, but you don't admit the thing you did is wrong, is that an admission of wrongdoing?"
Somehow, even though I was looking at the court page, I missed the stipulation itself. Not sure how that happened.

There are definitely admissions of wrongdoing, like where the board was supposed to meet at least once a year and they admitted that hadn't happened for multiple years. The admission you mention is for self-dealing; as I understand it, buying the portrait was fine (it was sold to the Trump Foundation during a charity auction), but renting it to his private hotel was a breach of fiduciary duty. He also breached his fiduciary duty by allowing his political campaign to run a fundraiser event for the Foundation, which is political self-dealing (even if the money did all go to charities as advertised). Mr. Trump also used Foundation funds to make a $100,000 charitable contribution that a Florida court ordered him to make personally, although ten years later he reimbursed the Foundation with interest. (Effectively that's a self-dealing loan, I guess).

So yeah, totally wrong there, lots of admissions of wrongdoing.

~Max
  #4021  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:22 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Do you think that is behavior that is appropriate for a president?
  #4022  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:22 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,254
There's a letter from Bolton and Kupperman's solicitor to the General Counsel of the House of Representatives attached to this tweet from Yamiche Alcindor, PBS:
Quote:
Attorney for John Bolton and Charles Kupperman says in letter that House Chairs leading impeachment inquiry are wrong to say Kupperman’s lawsuit is intended "to delay or otherwise obstruct the Committees’ vital investigatory work."
It says that the House Chairs consider that potential testimonies of Kupperman and Bolton should be "guided by the decision in [the] McGahn [case]". However, "the House Chairs are mistaken", the Bolton/Kupperman solicitor argues.

Despite House Democrats withdrawing the subpoena for Kupperman, the case is continuing:
Quote:
Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a President George W. Bush appointee, told the parties late Wednesday that the case will not be dismissed, stating only Kupperman can do so.

“Considering that the House and the Department of Justice have already researched and briefed these issues, the Court sees no reason why we cannot continue on the course that’s been set,” Leon said.
  #4023  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:30 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
AP:
There's a Washington Post article from yesterday titled: "Charles Kupperman subpoena withdrawn by House as it asks judge to dismiss lawsuit over his testimony" [subscription needed]
As Aspenglow mentioned, it looks like the House wants to consolidate everything into McGahn's case. From the WaPo article you mentioned,
"Instead, the House said that in the interest of speed, it would look to the outcome of another case that is further along in judicial proceedings — that involving a subpoena to former White House counsel Donald McGahn."
I am surprised the House didn't ask for a stay pending resolution of the McGahn case, instead of withdrawing all the subpoenas.

Even I think absolute immunity as advocated by Burnham (DOJ lawyer in McGahn case) is too strong. How can he square that theory with U.S. v Nixon? I hope he has a backup defense, but I can't think of one.

~Max
  #4024  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:31 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Do you think that is behavior that is appropriate for a president?
No, I do not.

~Max
  #4025  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
There's a letter from Bolton and Kupperman's solicitor to the General Counsel of the House of Representatives attached to this tweet from Yamiche Alcindor, PBS:

It says that the House Chairs consider that potential testimonies of Kupperman and Bolton should be "guided by the decision in [the] McGahn [case]". However, "the House Chairs are mistaken", the Bolton/Kupperman solicitor argues.

Despite House Democrats withdrawing the subpoena for Kupperman, the case is continuing:
It's hard not to read between the lines of what you have shared.

Leon may intend to rule in a different way than Brown Jackson. Which is scary, because his ruling would be the first one to attach some authority to the absolute immunity bullshit -- in complete contrast to the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution. Such a disagreement would surely be taken up by SCOTUS.

I hope I'm wrong and Leon chooses only to buttress Brown Jackson's ruling.

And I hope impeachment proceedings go ahead either way without testimony of either Kupperman or Bolton. Neither is needed.
  #4026  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:36 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Anyone have any idea when we'll get a ruling on whatever case will get Bolton yapping? Is the law clear on this or is there a good chance Bolton et al will be gagged?
  #4027  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:47 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,243
I hope the Dems are smart enough to not put Bolton in the public eye. He's a hawk, hawk, hawk, and he will find a way to fuck the Dems' impeachment efforts. The fact that he's doing a public strip tease to get them to bring him in makes me even more leery of his testimony.
  #4028  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:55 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Leon may intend to rule in a different way than Brown Jackson. Which is scary, because his ruling would be the first one to attach some authority to the absolute immunity bullshit -- in complete contrast to the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution. Such a disagreement would surely be taken up by SCOTUS.

I hope I'm wrong and Leon chooses only to buttress Brown Jackson's ruling.
Say December comes and the House has the articles of impeachment drafted and scheduled for a vote. One article is for obstruction of justice based in part on the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas. Two contradictory opinions come out of the courts regarding the executive privilege / absolute immunity. Do we have any precedents where the Supreme Court will expedite something before the election season officially begins?

I really don't want the impeachment stalling over this until just before election day next year, and then suddenly the Supreme Court hands down a ruling. You thought Jim Comey's last minute "announcement" was something, a court ruling on an impeachment-related case in the weeks/months before election day would be 1000x worse.

~Max
  #4029  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I hope the Dems are smart enough to not put Bolton in the public eye. He's a hawk, hawk, hawk, and he will find a way to fuck the Dems' impeachment efforts. The fact that he's doing a public strip tease to get them to bring him in makes me even more leery of his testimony.
In fairness to Bolton, he's also doing that public strip tease in order to sell more books:

Quote:
... It also remains to be seen how soon Bolton’s new book will come out, but when [Axios reporter Jonathan] Swan appeared on MSNBC’s “First Look” on Friday morning, he predicted that it would most likely come out sometime before the 2020 election. And Swan also said that Bolton, unlike former Defense Secretary James Mattis, would be likely to openly criticize the Trump Administration in his book. ...
https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/how...ews-for-trump/

But, yes. House Democrats should not let Bolton testify publicly. Mindful of those book sales, again, he is highly likely to throw bombs that would enhance the Trump-defense strategy of chaos creation.
  #4030  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:20 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I hope the Dems are smart enough to not put Bolton in the public eye. He's a hawk, hawk, hawk, and he will find a way to fuck the Dems' impeachment efforts. The fact that he's doing a public strip tease to get them to bring him in makes me even more leery of his testimony.
I think Bolton will produce (like his lawyers are hinting). He's supposedly one to hold a grudge and also supposedly has a high degree of integrity (I'm sure I'll get shit for that - just read it a couple times from decent sources). Republicans will still be in power if Trump gets ousted.

Last edited by KidCharlemagne; 11-08-2019 at 06:24 PM.
  #4031  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:26 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Of course, the actual response is much better: a shrug, an added charge, and a statement telling Bolton, Kupperman, et al, it's too late:

Democrats' new moves show House could wrap up impeachment by Christmas

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/polit...ine/index.html

"Naw, we good bro. We don't need John Bolton. Y'all sit over there now and be quiet."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
John Bolton is a tease.

Amy Fiscus, NYT:

ETA: Or his lawyer is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Anyone have any idea when we'll get a ruling on whatever case will get Bolton yapping? Is the law clear on this or is there a good chance Bolton et al will be gagged?
I think the House is playing this one perfectly as far as Bolton is concerned. They strung him out as long as it took to get others to testify to what Bolton was going to testify, dumped him, and now Bolton is jumping up and down, nearly demanding to be heard. "I got something you wanna kno-o-ow, nyah nyah", indeed. Schiff's response ought to be "save it for the book tour" and I, for one, am glad it is.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-08-2019 at 06:29 PM.
  #4032  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:56 PM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,818
We are using the fact that the president has now admitted to illegally taking funds that he had claimed would go to veterans and using it for himself as evidence that the man is likely to have lied about impeachable stuff. How about we discuss that a president who admits to illegally taking funds that he had claimed would to to veterans and using it for himself should, in and of itself, should get impeached?
  #4033  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:58 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Fine with me. And as for the rest of the chucklefucks, since when is disobeying a subpoena a-ok with everyone??

Last edited by bobot; 11-08-2019 at 07:02 PM. Reason: Chucklefuck has 2Ks
  #4034  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:59 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Every president is elected.

This appears to be an argument that the entire concept of impeachment is illegitimate.

Impeachment doesn't disenfranchise anyone. It is essential if we desire to not live in a criminal dictatorship. I don't think anyone voted for that. I don't remember that being on the ballot.
Aren't they the ones who are always screaming about obeying the constitution? It's literally in the constitution.
  #4035  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:25 PM
DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Aren't they the ones who are always screaming about obeying the constitution? It's literally in the constitution.
They believe in the constitution in the same way they believe in the bible, selectively and only when it's in their favor.
  #4036  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:54 PM
dgrdfd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: For Leaffan
Posts: 787
Why do you guys continue to engage a propaganda agent?
  #4037  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:57 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Say December comes and the House has the articles of impeachment drafted and scheduled for a vote. One article is for obstruction of justice based in part on the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas. Two contradictory opinions come out of the courts regarding the executive privilege / absolute immunity. Do we have any precedents where the Supreme Court will expedite something before the election season officially begins?
The Court can move quickly when the Court sees a need to. The most relevant example possible --

United States v. Nixon in 1974. The Supreme Court got the case on July 8, and delivered its ruling on July 24.

Clinton v. Jones didn't go to the Supreme Court during an election year, but it was argued in January 1997 and the decision was handed down in May.
  #4038  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:46 PM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,254
Maggie Haberman, NYT:
Quote:
Mulvaney lawyer William Pittard files to join existing kupperman lawsuit over whether to comply with House efforts to seek testimony.
  #4039  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:41 AM
Walken After Midnight is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,254
Rachael Bade, Washington Post:
Quote:
HIll GOP just released its desires witness list for impeachment hearings, which includes — wait for it — Nellie Ohr, Hunter Biden, another Burisma board member as well as Alexandra Chalupa.

They also want the whistleblower, plus Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison
  #4040  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:11 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Somehow, even though I was looking at the court page, I missed the stipulation itself. Not sure how that happened.

There are definitely admissions of wrongdoing, like where the board was supposed to meet at least once a year and they admitted that hadn't happened for multiple years. The admission you mention is for self-dealing; as I understand it, buying the portrait was fine (it was sold to the Trump Foundation during a charity auction), but renting it to his private hotel was a breach of fiduciary duty. He also breached his fiduciary duty by allowing his political campaign to run a fundraiser event for the Foundation, which is political self-dealing (even if the money did all go to charities as advertised). Mr. Trump also used Foundation funds to make a $100,000 charitable contribution that a Florida court ordered him to make personally, although ten years later he reimbursed the Foundation with interest. (Effectively that's a self-dealing loan, I guess).

So yeah, totally wrong there, lots of admissions of wrongdoing.

~Max
I'll check what the Trump's admitted to later but the full story in the original case against him was that the Trump Organization ran a special event at their golf course, with a $1 million prize if anyone hit a hole in one. Someone did.

Trump refused to pay out, was sued by the winner, lost the case, and was ordered to give his personal money to charity since the winner didn't want Trump's money anymore, he was so disgusted by the man (or something).

Rather than pay, he took money from his own charity and rather than give money, he spent the money at a charity auction to buy the painting of himself.

The self-dealing is the part where he uses money that people granted to his charity to pay off the legal suit that he lost. Traditionally, that's what we would call theft. If you're sharing an apartment with four other people, and you all have a thing where you donate money to a jar to help pay for groceries for the group, but you never do, and you take the money to finance buying food for yourself and your girlfriend, the fact that you are buying food and the money was intended for buying food doesn't stop what you are doing from being theft. Your roomies could send you to jail.

Trump did that at a scale of a million dollars. At those prices, thievery becomes self-dealing, embezzlement, etc. because the sorts of people who do it have good enough lawyers and look sufficiently presentable in court that it's nearly impossible to get a jury to send them to jail. If the government tried to charge them with criminal theft, they'd all go free. In cases like that, the government creates lesser crimes and penalties, forgiving you if you pay the money back, close your charity and agree to never run one again, etc. But, at the end of the day, embezzlement is just the same crime as an employee taking some cash out of a cash register. Maybe not in the court system. But it is all just plain robbery.

Thievery, though, is just the crime in the matter.

We should also note that Trump didn't or couldn't pay the $1 million to begin with. Was he actually desperate for money? In our apartment example, what is the likelihood that the thief is flush with cash? More likely, he's in a hole. But we can bet that that's not what he's telling the girls that he dates.

Trump campaigned on the idea that he was a capable, organized, successful leader of large organizations. As it is, he might just be a person that steals a little bit of money from here, a little bit there, and refuses to pay his bills - forcing those who expected to earn a living from working with him to go off and starve after many hard months of work. And while, yes, it would be true that his businesses do continue to exist and operate thanks to all of that, I wouldn't classify that as successful operation any more than I would the USSR, because it was able to squeak by for a few decades.

He campaigned as having an eye to reducing the amount of corruption in Washington DC. But he hired people who were all corrupt, broke all of Obama's anti-corruption policies to keep lobbyists out of the White House, hasn't (to my knowledge) suggested any policies nor laws to reduce corruption in DC, and as we note from the story he seems to be a simple thief - the sort of person who would love and encourage corruption, not fight it.

From an impeachment standpoint, if the President lied his way all the way through the campaign, telling the people that he was the exact opposite sort of person as he actually is and had the exact opposite policy as he days he does, it would be fair to say that that is criminal fraud. If you tell me you're a doctor and then you prove to have been a pump worker at a sewage plant, and you were putting your fingers in my wife's orifices, I would report you to the police and you would be charged with fraud and assault and battery.

The case of the painting isn't definitive on Trump being strapped for cash. He may have just hated the guy who won the prize.

But even when he was forced to pay, he used Vince McMahon's money to do so. And we see him doing things like not paying contractors, allowing his personal lawyer to rat him out to the Feds rather than help pay his legal fees, etc. There's enough circumstantial evidence floating around that it would be reasonable to guess that the man's businesses are running in the red. Certainly, the a White House hasn't become more fiscally responsible, and the citizens are paying through the nose to finance all of Trump's lawyers, to handle the large swathes of cases against him and his government.

If you campaign as wanting to save the rain forest and, getting in office, the first thing you do is send planes out to start fire bombing Brazil, and going on TV, cackling that "You all believed me! What a bunch of rubes!" Again, that would be criminal fraud, and an impeachable offense.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-09-2019 at 12:16 PM.
  #4041  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:06 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Rachael Bade, Washington Post:
They clearly forgot to ask to hear from Linda Tripp, QAnon, and Jeffrey Epstein.
  #4042  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:15 PM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
They clearly forgot to ask to hear from Linda Tripp, QAnon, and Jeffrey Epstein.
This shows how seriously the Republicans are taking this.

Howard Baker (R-TN) -- famous for asking "What did the president know and when did he know it?" -- must be rolling in his grave.
  #4043  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:29 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
This shows how seriously the Republicans are taking this.

Howard Baker (R-TN) -- famous for asking "What did the president know and when did he know it?" -- must be rolling in his grave.
Well, the funny thing about that phrase is that Baker was probably implying that Watergate was simply a rogue operation that Nixon didn’t know anything about, and so he was setting things up for anyone but Nixon to take the fall. And yet, it has come to mean a commitment to getting to the bottom of a controversial matter without regard for politics.

Much like how Ford’s quote about impeachable crimes being anything the Congress wants them to be. Ford didn’t actually mean literally anything, but that’s how people now understand it.

Last edited by Ravenman; 11-09-2019 at 02:30 PM.
  #4044  
Old 11-09-2019, 03:03 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight View Post
Mulvaneys lawyer is named Pittard? Hoisted!
  #4045  
Old 11-09-2019, 03:26 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,060
So if the Repubs want to hear from young Biden, and if he chooses to ignore the subpoena, then what?
  #4046  
Old 11-09-2019, 03:32 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
So if the Repubs want to hear from young Biden, and if he chooses to ignore the subpoena, then what?
Then the GOP declare that not showing up proves he's guilty of manufacturing the phone call, the witch hunt, the fake news, and Dotard claims presidency for life.

Since the GOP does all the opposite things that the dems do, this seems reasonable.
  #4047  
Old 11-09-2019, 03:59 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I'll check what the Trump's admitted to later but the full story in the original case against him was that the Trump Organization ran a special event at their golf course, with a $1 million prize if anyone hit a hole in one. Someone did.

Trump refused to pay out, was sued by the winner, lost the case, and was ordered to give his personal money to charity since the winner didn't want Trump's money anymore, he was so disgusted by the man (or something).

Rather than pay, he took money from his own charity and rather than give money, he spent the money at a charity auction to buy the painting of himself.

The self-dealing is the part where he uses money that people granted to his charity to pay off the legal suit that he lost. Traditionally, that's what we would call theft. If you're sharing an apartment with four other people, and you all have a thing where you donate money to a jar to help pay for groceries for the group, but you never do, and you take the money to finance buying food for yourself and your girlfriend, the fact that you are buying food and the money was intended for buying food doesn't stop what you are doing from being theft. Your roomies could send you to jail.

Trump did that at a scale of a million dollars. At those prices, thievery becomes self-dealing, embezzlement, etc. because the sorts of people who do it have good enough lawyers and look sufficiently presentable in court that it's nearly impossible to get a jury to send them to jail. If the government tried to charge them with criminal theft, they'd all go free. In cases like that, the government creates lesser crimes and penalties, forgiving you if you pay the money back, close your charity and agree to never run one again, etc. But, at the end of the day, embezzlement is just the same crime as an employee taking some cash out of a cash register. Maybe not in the court system. But it is all just plain robbery.

Thievery, though, is just the crime in the matter.

We should also note that Trump didn't or couldn't pay the $1 million to begin with. Was he actually desperate for money? In our apartment example, what is the likelihood that the thief is flush with cash? More likely, he's in a hole. But we can bet that that's not what he's telling the girls that he dates.

Trump campaigned on the idea that he was a capable, organized, successful leader of large organizations. As it is, he might just be a person that steals a little bit of money from here, a little bit there, and refuses to pay his bills - forcing those who expected to earn a living from working with him to go off and starve after many hard months of work. And while, yes, it would be true that his businesses do continue to exist and operate thanks to all of that, I wouldn't classify that as successful operation any more than I would the USSR, because it was able to squeak by for a few decades.

He campaigned as having an eye to reducing the amount of corruption in Washington DC. But he hired people who were all corrupt, broke all of Obama's anti-corruption policies to keep lobbyists out of the White House, hasn't (to my knowledge) suggested any policies nor laws to reduce corruption in DC, and as we note from the story he seems to be a simple thief - the sort of person who would love and encourage corruption, not fight it.

From an impeachment standpoint, if the President lied his way all the way through the campaign, telling the people that he was the exact opposite sort of person as he actually is and had the exact opposite policy as he days he does, it would be fair to say that that is criminal fraud. If you tell me you're a doctor and then you prove to have been a pump worker at a sewage plant, and you were putting your fingers in my wife's orifices, I would report you to the police and you would be charged with fraud and assault and battery.

The case of the painting isn't definitive on Trump being strapped for cash. He may have just hated the guy who won the prize.

But even when he was forced to pay, he used Vince McMahon's money to do so. And we see him doing things like not paying contractors, allowing his personal lawyer to rat him out to the Feds rather than help pay his legal fees, etc. There's enough circumstantial evidence floating around that it would be reasonable to guess that the man's businesses are running in the red. Certainly, the a White House hasn't become more fiscally responsible, and the citizens are paying through the nose to finance all of Trump's lawyers, to handle the large swathes of cases against him and his government.

If you campaign as wanting to save the rain forest and, getting in office, the first thing you do is send planes out to start fire bombing Brazil, and going on TV, cackling that "You all believed me! What a bunch of rubes!" Again, that would be criminal fraud, and an impeachable offense.
Do you have proof that trump was not being coerced into such behaviors? Without such proof how do we really know anything?

Seriously though thank you for pointing this out: Trinp has been lying to the nation with cunning and to get specific outcomes, as a job seeker with us, the american people, and yet most discussions start out with the basic assumption that: we deserve it; he has the right; and the voters who voted for him would be disenfranchised if we call it wrong.

If you act like you deserve it you will get it.

We need a voters union. Campaign lies don't just affect those who voted for the winner, but those who voted against him too, even more so. They have to be represented. THey don't lose all interests in the administration. Their interest is actually greater. His promises got him elected so if they are false then the lies were weaponized to take over the government by fraud.

This is the actual real life version of the rebupkis pathetic attempt to call "coup!" and go back to the dossier or something, as if it were possible to unring the bell. It is a real coup to lie to take over the government.

Last edited by drad dog; 11-09-2019 at 04:00 PM.
  #4048  
Old 11-09-2019, 04:15 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
So if the Repubs want to hear from young Biden, and if he chooses to ignore the subpoena, then what?
That proves he hacked Hillary’s emails, or something.
  #4049  
Old 11-09-2019, 05:22 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,822
As I understand it, Republican witnesses can be rejected by a vote and also if the White House continues to not cooperate by stopping witnesses from testifying.

Considering I have zero confidence that Trump will stop stonewalling, and also knowing that Democrats want to stick to the issues at hand and not turn it into a circus on the alleged corruption of Joe Biden, I have trouble believing that they're going to push many, if any witnesses through.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #4050  
Old 11-09-2019, 07:17 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by dgrdfd View Post
Why do you guys continue to engage a propaganda agent?
If you wish to make inflammatory accusations, please take them to The BBQ Pit. Personal shots do not belong in Great Debates or Elections (or anywhere outside the Pit).

[ /Moderating ]
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017