The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[elucidator]

** ‘The answer is yes’: Sondland affirms ‘quid pro quo’ in Ukraine dealings**

His credibility is likely to come under fire.

• headline at Politico, submitted for Understatement of the Year Award

[Fiveyearlurker]

Where the hell can the goalposts go now?

[Airbeck]

Witch hunt?
Hoax?

Do Trumpers need something that actually holds water? At this point its nothing more than a collective fingers in the ears accompanied by “na na I can’t hear you”.

[ThelmaLou]

From NYTimes live commentary:

Maggie Haberman White House Correspondent

It is striking, over and over again, how Sondland keeps reading from a lengthy list of names of who knew what about the pressure campaign on Ukraine.

Among those names was Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff. Pompeo and Pence were also on the list.

Those three men are the ones who have remained the biggest question marks in terms of who knew what. Sondland is explicitly saying they all knew something.

To your earlier point, Michael [another reporter], most every defense that Republicans have offered of Trump crumbles against Sondland’s testimony. But that doesn’t mean Republicans will stop using them.

And this is also another reminder of why the White House’s widespread credibility problem, created by the president’s lack of truthfulness on matters big and small over the last five years, is so corrosive over time. When Trump officials inevitably say that Sondland isn’t being truthful, they will get less of the benefit of the doubt.

“Again, everyone was in the loop,” Sondland says, backing up the bus and then driving it forward again.

[kenobi_65]

@Fiveyearlurker

Where the hell can the goalposts go now?

I think they’ve already been going to some combination of:
a) So what? It’s been done in the past, too.
b) Even if it was “inappropriate,” it doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Quinted. Yes Aspenglow, you da man. My posts suck, for reference purposes.

[sciurophobic]

I think the least terrible argument the Republicans could advance is that Trump didn’t know he was doing anything wrong. He’s surrounded by yes-men and whenever someone notified anybody who should have done something their concerns were ultimately ignored.

I don’t think this is a valid excuse, as ignorance is not an excuse. But I do think it’s the least terrible, as there is no evidence to the contrary and the Republicans could argue that a President has to assume his advisors will not lead him astray and so it’s not his fault that they did.

[ThelmaLou]

From NYTimes live commentary

Kenneth Vogel Washington Correspondent

Sondland’s testimony here about a continuum in which more conditions continued to be added to the Ukrainians’ ability to secure a White House meeting is consistent with the Ukrainians’ feeling that the bar kept moving, according to my reporting.

10:20 AM ET
Maggie Haberman White House Correspondent

Sondland says he wasn’t aware that “Burisma,” the company that Hunter Biden was a consultant for in Ukraine, was synonymous with “Biden” when the president was talking about it over the summer. He says now he knows.

Jack up the bus. Make room for the soon-to-be-ex-pres.

[Sage_Rat]

@psychonaut

I think there is an important distinction between your situation and Trump’s, which is that your exposure of your financial records was a statutory precondition for obtaining your licence to deal poker, whereas there was no such statutory requirement for Trump’s election to public office. You may well argue that it should be a statutory requirement in the case of the president, but if it is not, then an attempt to legally enforce such a requirement after one’s election could be viewed as an ex post facto law, which is constitutionally prohibited. (Of course, there may be other, legally and constitutionally sound reasons for requesting Trump’s tax returns. All I’m arguing here is that your particular reason—that is, that Trump’s personal finances can examined simply by virtue of his already having been elected to public office—doesn’t seem to hold water.)

1. Presidents voluntarily show their tax returns. As such, there should be no need for a law to force them to show them.
2. In the case that they opt to not voluntary show their tax returns, there is a law to force them to do so. This is to say, it is not actually optional.
3. That law was passed before any of us was born and it is silly to call that “ex post facto”. And, notably, that law was passed specifically with the intent of investigating corrupt activities in the White House.

If you feel like that’s unfair, great. But I think that tells us more about whether someone should send a tip about you to the FBI, that they should examine your finances, than it does about your understanding of “ex post facto”.

[Akaj]

@sciurophobic

I think the least terrible argument the Republicans could advance is that Trump didn’t know he was doing anything wrong. He’s surrounded by yes-men and whenever someone notified anybody who should have done something their concerns were ultimately ignored.

I don’t think this is a valid excuse, as ignorance is not an excuse. But I do think it’s the least terrible, as there is no evidence to the contrary and the Republicans could argue that a President has to assume his advisors will not lead him astray and so it’s not his fault that they did.

Good point. It’s clear the entire administration of yes-people needs to be impeached. And removed.

[MulderMuffin]

@Aspenglow

Each department, such as State, the National Security Council, FBI, CIA, etc., etc. has at least one legal adviser assigned to it. These are lawyers meant to act independent from the agency and among other tasks, to make legal calls when required. Employees who have concerns about the legality of an action are supposed to take their concerns to those lawyers for a determination about whether those concerns should be formally pursued.

In the case of the National Security Council, the attorney assigned to the position of legal adviser is John Eisenberg. This is “the lawyer” whom Lt. Col. Vindman and Fiona Hill notified of their concerns. Rather than referring the matter to DOJ, he buried the call transcript on the secret server and instructed Vindman not to say anything further about the matter. Eisenberg was subpoenaed to testify and explain himself to the Intelligence Committee and has refused.

In the case of the CIA, weeks before the whistleblower complaint was submitted, their (Trump-appointed and confirmed) general counsel made a criminal referral to DOJ about the Ukraine irregularities. (NBC News) DOJ failed to open an investigation.

There were other referrals made to DOJ by various lawyers acting on behalf of their agencies as detailed here (CNN). In 3 separate instances, Bill Barr chose to ignore the referrals instead of opening a formal investigation – which is why the House committees have ended up doing the investigation instead of a special counsel being appointed à la Mueller. All referrals were ignored.

Thank you so much for this clear, detailed explanation. I guess I knew some of this, but hadn’t connected the dots. Ignorance fought!

“lawyers meant to act independent from the agency”… This Is the most frightening part, to me. Who’s watching the watchers? I, perhaps naively, had no idea that such rampant corruption was possible with all of the checks and balances built into the system. It sounds like it’s time to clean house and get some truly independent people in places where actual independence is vital to the aims of the office.

Sondland looks to be walking a tightrope in which he’s trying to more or less tell the truth that so many others have already brought to light while making himself look as good as possible. He took a page out of Volker’s book to claim that he didn’t know that Burisma = Biden. He’s afraid to lie, but he’s afraid to admit to his own complicity.

[Max_S]

@Fiveyearlurker

Where the hell can the goalposts go now?

I would still prefer to see the House establish, as a fact, that no domestic investigations were underway concerning Biden/Burisma or the Crowdstrike thing.

~Max

[steronz]

@Max_S

I would still prefer to see the House establish, as a fact, that no domestic investigations were underway concerning Biden/Burisma or the Crowdstrike thing.

~Max

Can’t prove a negative.

[Ravenman]

@Max_S

I would still prefer to see the House establish, as a fact, that no domestic investigations were underway concerning Biden/Burisma or the Crowdstrike thing.

That seems backwards – the House should prove a negative? Seems like DoJ should assert that there is an investigation into those things, otherwise we should assume for the time being that there are not.

After all, I can’t prove that there are no lizard people in the State Department. (Note that Rudy is not actually in the State Department.)

[Sage_Rat]

@sciurophobic

I think the least terrible argument the Republicans could advance is that Trump didn’t know he was doing anything wrong. He’s surrounded by yes-men and whenever someone notified anybody who should have done something their concerns were ultimately ignored.

Someone here, on some issue or another, has tried to make the case that Trump simply has the misfortune of having bad advisors.

But, of course, that neglects the question of “Well, who choose those advisors? And who only hires the best and is a very stable genius with a perfect memory?”

It’s incredulous that Trump would end up knowing a bunch of pro-Russian Ukrainian operatives and have them serving on his campaign and in the White House and that that’s accidental. How many pro-Russian Ukraine non-Ukrainian operatives are there in the world, do you think? And how is that the only known way for them to have all gotten into contact with one another is through Donald Trump? Why the hell would anyone in the US land on that side of the matter (minus, for example, being blackmailed to do so or paid to do so), let alone feel the need to operate a shadow foreign policy on it?

It may be that it makes sense to ignore the whole CrowdStrike/Naftogaz side of all this, to prevent it from getting lost in conspiracy theory land or turning into a discussion of Giuliani being criminal rather than the President. But if you look at the wider picture, it’s hard to envision such a large basket of such specificly focused “bad advisors” to all end up in the same place, minus a binding leader and minus criminals influence.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Sondland testifies to a “continuum of insidiousness”

In your deposition, you testified that you found yourself on a continuum that became more insidious over time. Can you describe what you mean by this continuum of insidiousness?" Schiff asked.

Here’s how he responded:

"Well, Mr. Chairman, when we left the oval office I believe on may 23rd, the request was very generic for an investigation of corruption in a very vanilla sense and dealing with some of the oligarch problems in Ukraine, which were long-standing problems. And then as time went on, more specific items got added to the menu — including the Burisma and 2016 election meddling, specifically, the DNC server, specifically — and over this, over this continuum, it became more and more difficult to secure the White House meeting, because more conditions were being placed on the White House meeting."

He has also said that his is now aware that “investigate Burisma” and “Investigate Biden” are synonymous.

[Ravenman]

@MulderMuffin

“lawyers meant to act independent from the agency”… This Is the most frightening part, to me. Who’s watching the watchers? I, perhaps naively, had no idea that such rampant corruption was possible with all of the checks and balances built into the system. It sounds like it’s time to clean house and get some truly independent people in places where actual independence is vital to the aims of the office.

I wouldn’t characterize the lawyers as being “independent” from the agency. The general counsels in each government agency – and we’re talking about pretty large organizations when it comes to DoD, for example, not just one guy – are not formulating policy themselves, but they are informing policymakers constantly about what they can and cannot do. Policymakers look to them for guidance on various issues, but ultimately these lawyers work for the agency and President and will generally try to interpret the law in ways beneficial to the agency itself.

An analogy can be made to the HR department at your place of work. When trouble with an employee arises, management will consult with HR on what they can do to resolve the problem. Also, employees may take problems to HR. But, ultimately HR works for the interests of the company itself.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Max_S

I would still prefer to see the House establish, as a fact, that no domestic investigations were underway concerning Biden/Burisma or the Crowdstrike thing.

~Max

Why? Sondland is currently testifying that Trump didn’t care if there was an actual investigation. They just had to announce that there was one. Nobody cared about the investigation itself.

[elucidator]

Can’t wait to hear Nunes and Jordan.

[Ravenman]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Sondland testifies to a “continuum of insidiousness”

You know, when I first heard that phrase this morning, my first thought is how people get in trouble with being recruited by foreign intelligence services. A hostile intelligence service doesn’t start off by asking a new potential source to steal the crown jewels of secrets in exchange for $50,000 or whatever.

More likely, they’ll ask for something simple – could you look up the phone number for this guy in the office down the hall from you? Oh great… actually, if you could get the phone office phone book, that’d be nice. Which is the IT guy again? Oh, do you know where he lives? Is this his home number? Can you give me his cell phone number? Can you put this thumbdrive in his computer for me? No? Well, you know your boss would be very unhappy that you’ve been providing all this information to us… but we could keep it quiet… and here’s a few thousand dollars for your trouble… Great, so here’s the thumb drive. See you next week.

Does anyone have any doubt at all that these knuckleheads like Sondland, Rudy, and the other amateur hour players are completely vulnerable to this sort of finding themselves up to their eyeballs in trouble? I’m not saying that they were actually recruited by Russia or whatever – but that these guys are coming off looking like the easiest marks in the world.