The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[Max_S]

@JohnT

I don’t mean to be spamming the thread, but in 1 hour the news has come out:

1. Giuliani subpoenaed
2. Pompeo was on the call
3. Oh, and the same shit was done with Australia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/us/politics/trump-australia-barr-mueller.html

I’m not sure if this should go in a separate thread, but I’ll just say it here.

I don’t think the “transcripts” should be released because it will discourage future talks with foreign leaders. If the Congress investigates, again I think the investigation should be done behind closed doors. If something improper turns up only the offending conduct should make its way into the public eye.

The whistleblower report was fine for public consumption. The memorandum was not - if the Ukraine were not so dependent on our military aid I think they would be making more noise about this.

Australia is another U.S. ally. At the very least, obtain their permission before publicly releasing a transcript between their head of state and ours.

~Max

[drad_dog]

@Rick_Kitchen

Agreed. Article 1, Section 3 says: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

What about the clawback of pension and bennies?

[Rick_Kitchen]

@drad_dog

What about the clawback of pension and bennies?

Would that count as Profit?

[JohnT]

@Max_S

I’m not sure if this should go in a separate thread, but I’ll just say it here.

I don’t think the “transcripts” should be released because it will discourage future talks with foreign leaders. If the Congress investigates, again I think the investigation should be done behind closed doors. If something improper turns up only the offending conduct should make its way into the public eye.

The whistleblower report was fine for public consumption. The memorandum was not - if the Ukraine were not so dependent on our military aid I think they would be making more noise about this.

Australia is another U.S. ally. At the very least, obtain their permission before publicly releasing a transcript between their head of state and ours.

~Max

LOL, since when does the United States take orders from the Australian Prime Minister and the Kremlin?

… wait… being interrupted here… oh… Really?.. But that… welllll, shit. OK…

Sorry, I meant that as a rhetorical question and somebody just informed me that the answer is January 20th, 2017.

[JohnT]

Someday I just hope that Trump will get around to colludin’ with the good, ole, US of A.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@JohnT

Secretary of State Pompeo was on the call, the WSJ reports:

https://twitter.com/dnvolz/status/1178763433619214340?s=20

“NEW: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior State Department official said Monday, a disclosure that ties the State Department more closely to an ongoing congressional inquiry.”

Just another example of how Trump and the Republicans are stepping on their own dicks.

Yesterday, Trump is blathering “HEARSAY!! IT’S ALL HEARSAY!”

Well then… I guess they’ll just have to subpoena Mike Pompeo and put him under oath. If he wants to perjur himself and deny what is in the official documents, then jail him.

[Northern_Piper]

@Max_S

At the very least, obtain their permission before publicly releasing a transcript between their head of state and ours.

~Max

Have you not been paying attention the past 2 1/2 year?

Donald Trump doesn’t care about so-called “allies” , buncha free-loaders.

And treaties and anything that restricts the POTUS’s ability to do whatever he wants to do mean jack-shit to him.

What makes you think he’ll suddenly start playing by “rules of international diplomacy”, whatever the hell they are?

America is back! Big, mean, and doesn’t care about anything but itself under Trump.

And all good Republicans do nothing more than say "tut, tut, Mr President. But whatever you want. "

PS - “Ukraine”’ please. No “the”.

[Max_S]

@JohnT

LOL, since when does the United States take orders from the Australian Prime Minister and the Kremlin?

I did not say the documents should be withheld from Congressional oversight based on witness allegations of improper conduct, I said they should not be released to the American public until such conduct is identified, and only released to the extent necessary to demonstrate such impropriety.

~Max

[Tired_and_Cranky]

@Tired_and_Cranky

I generally agree with Saint Cad that McConnell cannot stop the Senate trial of the President upon his impeachment. I’ll go one step further - the power to preside over the trial in the Constitution is given solely to the Chief Justice and the power to convict comes with the “concurrence of two thirds of the [Senate] members present.” In my view, if any Senate rule as applied were to restrict the Chief Justice’s power to preside over the trial, that Senate rule is unconstitutional and the Chief Justice can ignore it.

There’s an interesting article on Slate addressing whether Mitch McConnell can stymie a Senate vote on impeachment. Walter Dellinger, a former Acting U.S. Solicitor General and current Duke constitutional law professor, had this to say:

*t’s not clear to me that it’s Mitch McConnell rather than John Roberts, chief justice, who decides to commence the proceedings. Now, political friends tell me that Majority Leader McConnell would wish to avoid a roll-call vote. He’s got too many members who might be exposed that time either to say, “What is clearly established to have happened didn’t happen,” or to acknowledge that it happened, but say, “It’s OK for a president to do things like those that are detailed in articles of impeachment.” I don’t think the majority leader can make motions. It has to be that the president’s lawyers could move to dismiss without any further proceedings and avoid the Senate trial.

So, on that motion to just simply dismiss all the charges—which I believe they could make—if it were carried by a majority vote, I believe that’s the end of the matter in the Senate, as a matter of the Senate’s sheer power to try impeachments. But I think that the chief justice would call the question and listen to the ays and nays, and almost certainly they would be close-enough ays and nays that the chief justice would say, “The voice vote being inconclusive, the clerk shall call the roll.” Senators would have to vote without hearing any evidence, or testimony, or briefing, or presentation, and I think that would be a tough vote, particularly since the chief justice would have the vote to decide whether to proceed or not. The framers didn’t contemplate that there would be a political party that had one member that could control how every member of that party voted—that is the present system where McConnell controls his caucus. But with the chief justice in the chair, I am not at all confident that the majority leader of the Senate can successfully make this go away without having at least an initial vote.

Without being quite as flippant as I was, he seems to agree that the Chief Justice controls the process - not the Senate.

[bobot]

@Max_S

I did not say the documents should be withheld from Congressional oversight based on witness allegations of improper conduct, I said they should not be released to the American public until such conduct is identified, and only released to the extent necessary to demonstrate such impropriety.

~Max

And redacted by whom? No thanks. If we elect presidents that are too damn stupid to speak without breaking the law, then those presidents can answer to the American public. Presidents work for me (and you) not the other way around. There’s plenty of shit that is classified, and stays that way.

[drad_dog]

@Rick_Kitchen

Would that count as Profit?

I suppose so. Looks like OJ has a better retirement plan.

[JohnT]

And any foreign leader dumb enough to say anything classified around Dotard, the Individual of the Firsts, deserves to be outed.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Is there anything that can be done about the blatantly obvious witness intimidation that Trump is currently trying to pull?

I mean, could he be any more of an obvious mob boss?

[Max_S]

@bobot

And redacted by whom? No thanks. If we elect presidents that are too damn stupid to speak without breaking the law, then those presidents can answer to the American public. Presidents work for me (and you) not the other way around. There’s plenty of shit that is classified, and stays that way.

By the Congress. Top-level private diplomatic communications should only be exposed publicly when necessary, in this context only if Congress uses such communications as grounds for impeachment.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Is there anything that can be done about the blatantly obvious witness intimidation that Trump is currently trying to pull?

I mean, could he be any more of an obvious mob boss?

I suppose he could call the witness a “Rat”. :rolleyes:

~Max

[Dr.Colossus]

@Aspenglow

Man, no kidding. You take your attention off this story for 30 minutes to compile a request for links, and… all hell breaks loose!!

But I sincerely thank you for said links. I’ve got so much catching up to do so your help is greatly appreciated.

[JohnT]

Sorry, guys. There’s another one:

Attorney General Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016

Attorney General William P. Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials seeking their help in a Justice Department inquiry that President Trump hopes will discredit U.S. intelligence agencies’ examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to people familiar with the matter.

…

The attorney general’s active role also underscores the degree to which a nearly three-year old election still consumes significant resources and attention inside the federal government. Current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials expressed frustration and alarm Monday that the head of the Justice Department was taking such a direct role in re-examining what they view as conspiracy theories and baseless allegations of misconduct.

Pretty soon we’re going to have an interagency war involving the DOJ, FBI, and CIA.

[Ravenman]

@Max_S

By the Congress. Top-level private diplomatic communications should only be exposed publicly when necessary, in this context only if Congress uses such communications as grounds for impeachment.

In general I agree that such discussions should not be disclosed, but the specter of criminality blows those concerns away totally. And foreign leaders shouldn’t hide behind secrecy in messaging receptiveness to corrupt requests.

And let’s remember here why we have seen the memo/rough transcript: because Trump wanted it out there and thought it exonerated him. If a defendant mounts a stupid defense that backfires, you can’t save idiots from themselves.

[nelliebly]

NM

[davidm]

@JohnT

Sorry, guys. There’s another one:

Attorney General Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016

Pretty soon we’re going to have an interagency war involving the DOJ, FBI, and CIA.

Think about that. The freakin’ Attorney General of the United States of America met with foreign intelligence services in an attempt to discredit our own intelligence services.
Let that sink in.