Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

You're right.

However, there is a history of stonewalling, witnesses not turning up and here we have FOUR not attending. What are the chances of the WH not intimidating them to not turn up along with four family emergencies?

Just one. It's counsel which they are saying is not available, not the witnesses (Well, three of them, the fourth is claiming executive privilige). I would presume that the administration has a specific lawyer who specialises in these things.

What's the legal position here?

If people are ignoring a subpoena to appear , what options are open to compel them?

Can they be held in contempt and arrested as would happen in regular court?

Surely if they don't have those kind of powers then the whole process is pointless?

Is this another example of the "co-equal branches of Government" elements of the US Constitution that fall apart when you have people simply willing to ignore the guidelines?

They were scheduled, not subpeonaed. Two have since been subpeonaed.
However, to answer your question. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-how-powerful-are-congress-subpoenas-contempt-citations-idUSKCN1S81FP

In theory arrests or criminal proceedings may follow if a subpeona is ignored, but it hasn't been done in almost a century. In practice, a civil suit seems most likely which will result in contempt of court followed by arrest/imprisonment.

StringerBell

I'd be somewhat surprised if the SC would hear that appeal and even with his two judges in the bench I'd be amazed if they upheld the appeal in the case they did take it.

26000 Elephants

It just seems ludicrous that Trumps only defense on a request for his tax returns is that "he is immune from criminal prosecution"

Surely that hasn't happened yet, and that his refusal should be argued on some other basis? Otherwise it appears as if his lawyers are saying, "we know he will be prosecuted if this gets out. "

StringerBell

That's why the appeal was rejected, no grounds to overturn the original decision. Trump or his team can and frequently do make whatever argument pops into their head seemingly even when the arguments contradict previous or even current arguments (in a different forum)

Doesn't mean these frivolous appeals will work, just more wasting of taxpayer money.

Igotadose

FT poll: 2/3 of US voters state they're not better off, economically, under Trump.

https://www.ft.com/content/ce7e9f7c-fc13-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d9b6

Overheal

StringerBell wrote: »

That's why the appeal was rejected, no grounds to overturn the original decision. Trump or his team can and frequently do make whatever argument pops into their head seemingly even when the arguments contradict previous or even current arguments (in a different forum)

Doesn't mean these frivolous appeals will work, just more wasting of taxpayer money.

It’s all about delay. If it was about the answer they wouldn’t keep up writing frivolous appeals - many of which contradict one another. They want the process to drag out because they feel it politically benefits them. Shame the court didn’t throw it out with prejudice.

Thargor

Jesus that Kushner story would be an atomic bomb going off under any other administration but barely a peep about it.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/HouseIntel/status/1191398167553748993?s=19

These transcripts are verified by government non-partisan employees.

Off to pour myself a large cup of covfefe...

Stallingrad

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/HouseIntel/status/1191398167553748993?s=19

These transcripts are verified by government non-partisan employees.

Off to pour myself a large cup of covfefe...

Post up the juicy bits!

26000 Elephants

Thargor wrote: »

Jesus that Kushner story would be an atomic bomb going off under any other administration but barely a peep about it.

To be honest, if it was reported by anyone other than the Mail I'd be more inclined to believe it. Id wait until it gets a few more confirmations.

26000 Elephants

Stallingrad wrote: »

Post up the juicy bits!

Ambassador Yovanovich, when she became aware of the threats from Trump, ask Sondland for advise.
"Tweet something positive about him....."

Dear God.

Quin_Dub

amandstu wrote: »

Imagine even taking that case . Ah the poor wee president.

Must be something in them,you'd think.

If Trump wins a second term and tries to go for a third ,I hope Obama brings him down.

I really don't think that there is anything genuinely illegal in them to be honest.

I do think that they will show a number of potentially damaging details.

1 - That's he is nowhere near as wealthy as he has long claimed to be and in fact may not now (or maybe even ever have been) a Billionaire
2 - It will show that he has paid very little in taxes , mostly because he makes very little money and has been setting huge ongoing losses against tax liability.
3 - And this is the one that might expose him to legal risk - that he has been valuing his properties/holdings differently depending on the audience - a lower (probably more accurate) valuation for tax purposes and a greatly inflated valuation for Insurance purposes or as collateral against business loans. If he has made claims against an over-stated insurance policy or gotten loans based on incorrect statements of wealth, that could be considered fraud.

The above is all relative - He clearly an extremely wealthy person , but the release of multiple years of tax returns runs the risk of puncturing the "Brilliant Business man" brand that he has built for himself.

Having said that , for some of his supporters , evidence that his success is all smoke and mirrors might actually make them like him more - "Look what he has managed to get for himself without actually being good at anything !!"

mcmoustache

26000 Elephants wrote: »

To be honest, if it was reported by anyone other than the Mail I'd be more inclined to believe it. Id wait until it gets a few more confirmations.

The daily mail is reporting what The Spectator USA published. That publication is a credible one but so far they're the only crowd with the original reporting. Like yourself, when it's corroborated by someone else such as NYT or WaPo, I'll take it a bit more seriously.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I really don't think that there is anything genuinely illegal in them to be honest.

I do think that they will show a number of potentially damaging details.

1 - That's he is nowhere near as wealthy as he has long claimed to be and in fact may not now (or maybe even ever have been) a Billionaire
2- It will show that he has paid very little in taxes , mostly because he makes very little money and has been setting huge ongoing losses against tax liability.
3 - And this is the one that might expose him to legal risk - that he has been valuing his properties/holdings differently depending on the audience - a lower (probably more accurate) valuation for tax purposes and a greatly inflated valuation for Insurance purposes or as collateral against business loans. If he has made claims against an over-stated insurance policy or gotten loans based on incorrect statements of wealth, that could be considered fraud.

The above is all relative - He clearly an extremely wealthy person , but the release of multiple years of tax returns runs the risk of puncturing the "Brilliant Business man" brand that he has built for himself.

Having said that , for some of his supporters , evidence that his success is all smoke and mirrors might actually make them like him more - "Look what he has managed to get for himself without actually being good at anything !!"

And, again this is the Mazar's/Grand Jury case. If you item (3) comes to pass and there's no actual trial about inflating/deflating values (which can be avoided through plea bargaining/fine paying/etc.), we the public won't ever see the information. Grand Jury info is under seal. So, can't really get excited about this.

Now, if the taxes came out as part of the impeachment proceedings, which could happen, that's a different kettle of fish.

Igotadose

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Ambassador Yovanovich, when she became aware of the threats from Trump, ask Sondland for advise.
"Tweet something positive about him....."

Dear God.

Even worse. Her security was threatened eventually. She got this from a colleague at the State Department:
"She said that there was a lot of concern for me, that I needed to be on the next
plane home to Washington. And I was like, what? What happened? And she
said, I don’t know, but this is about your security. You need to come home
immediately. You need to come home on the next plane.
"
This is the highlights of the testimony document from Yovanovitch: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191104_-_yovanovitch_transcript_excerpts_final.pdf

Parnas and Furnas are mentioned as well as businessmen looking for a different ambassador in the post. So those 2 shreks have their fingers into this as well (they're not just illegally donating to the Trump campaign, they're working with Rudy to influence US foreign policy.)

Danzy

Leroy42 wrote: »

The problem is that M4A is such a divisive position. It shouldn't be of course, but it is clouded in Socialism, communism, hand outs, wasting money etc. Which is strange because that is precisely what Trump and the GOP are currently engaged in, just they do it in terms of farm subsidies, corporate tax cuts, tax cuts for the rich and a massive increase in spending for the military without any detailed breakdown of why such increases are required and with nobody being held responsible for the previous massive wastes of money and failure of the US military.

When an argument cannot even get to the details, but instead gets debated on the basis that the people putting it forward or anti American etc it is unsurprising that it never really get far.

Unfortunately the Dems are taking positions on it that will make it untenable to get through.

Is that deliberate or trying to appease the loony wing of their activists.

Probably the latter.

Igotadose

Danzy wrote: »

Unfortunately the Dems are taking positions on it that will make it untenable to get through.

Is that deliberate or trying to appease the loony wing of their activists.

Probably the latter.

I really wish the Democrats would, actually, spend their time running against Trump. He's as vulnerable an incumbent as there's ever been. The posturing on "M4A" is a distraction; Trump needs to go and de-Trumpification needs to happen to clean out the stench.

Here's another clip from Yovanovitch's testimony. She's talking about the current POTUS. The country needs to be brought back from the environment he's fostered; "Medicare For All" isn't the issue.

Q: At the bottom of that same page, President Trump says, “Well, she’s going to go
through some things.” What did you understand that to mean?
A: I didn’t know what it meant. I was very concerned. I still am.
Q: Did you feel threatened?
A: Yes

mcmoustache

I've been thinking for a while that those two who got arrested a few weeks ago when they tried to leg it to Vienna after receiving a subpoena would have an interesting role in this Ukraine scandal.

Ambassador Yovanovitch stated that Minister Avakov warned her that he was “very
concerned” about Mr. Giuliani and “told me I really needed to watch my back.” (Page 41)
Q: Did you ever have any conversations after November, December 2018, with
Ukrainian officials about Mr. Giuliani up until the time that you left in May?
A: I think perhaps in the February time period, I did where one of the senior
Ukrainian officials was very concerned, and told me I really needed to watch my
back.
Q: Describe that conversation.
A: Well, I mean, he basically said, and went into some detail, that there were two
individuals from Florida, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, who were working with
Mayor Giuliani, and that they had set up the meetings for Mr. Giuliani with Mr.
Lutsenko. And that they were interested in having a different ambassador at post,
I guess for—because they wanted to have business dealings in Ukraine, or
additional business dealings. I didn’t understand that because nobody at the
embassy had ever met those two individuals. And, you know, one of the biggest
jobs of an American ambassador of the U.S. Embassy is to promote U.S. business.
So, of course, if legitimate business comes to us, you know, that’s what we do, we
promote U.S. business. But yeah, so—
Q: So did you deduce or infer or come to learn that the business interests they had
were therefore not legitimate?
A: Honestly, I didn’t know. I didn’t know enough about it at the time. I thought it
was exceedingly strange.

everlast75

The Republicans say the whistleblower was not credible. Trump releases the memo of the call which backs the statement up.

The Republicans complain when there was no impeachment vote. The Dems hold a vote. They complain anyway.

The Republicans say they have no access. There are 47 Republicans who have access.

The witnesses back up the whistleblower. The Republicans attack their character.

The Republicans complain that the transcripts are not released. They are released.

When they are released, they say (without a screed of evidence) that they will be altered. They are not.

You bet that when the witnesses arrive to stand over their statements, they will be called liars.

serfboard

26000 Elephants wrote: »

It just seems ludicrous that Trumps only defense on a request for his tax returns is that "he is immune from criminal prosecution"

I thought he couldn't relase tax returns because he was being audited?

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

FT poll: 2/3 of US voters state they're not better off, economically, under Trump.

https://www.ft.com/content/ce7e9f7c-fc13-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d9b6

Based on chats I've had with colleagues based in the U.S. not surprising.

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

The Republicans say the whistleblower was not credible. Trump releases the memo of the call which backs the statement up.

The Republicans complain when there was no impeachment vote. The Dems hold a vote. They complain anyway.

The Republicans say they have no access. There are 47 Republicans who have access.

The witnesses back up the whistleblower. The Republicans attack their character.

The Republicans complain that the transcripts are not released. They are released.

When they are released, they say (without a screed of evidence) that they will be altered. They are not.

You bet that when the witnesses arrive to stand over their statements, they will be called liars.

If Bolton shows up it could be a game changer.

Igotadose

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Bolton shows up it could be a game changer.

Latest scuttle on Thehill.com is he won't. It'd be great entertainment if he did, I imagine he wouldn't be the most cooperative of witnesses, the Democrats don't exactly like the guy.

Nor do a lot of Republicans.

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

Latest scuttle on Thehill.com is he won't. It'd be great entertainment if he did, I imagine he wouldn't be the most cooperative of witnesses, the Democrats don't exactly like the guy.

Nor do a lot of Republicans.

I dunno. There's something troubling him. Could be conscience or he sees the writing on the wall. He'd be hard for Trump to disown and discredit though.

Outlaw Pete

Nice to see some US sports stars are not afraid to show that they appreciate and support the President.


https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1191466545622503425

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nice to see some US sports stars are not afraid to show that they appreciate and support the President.


https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1191466545622503425

https://twitter.com/DCBarno/status/1191452189962706946

mcmoustache

This guy's name keeps popping up with this administration.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DCBarno/status/1191452189962706946

Delighted you posted that, and to see it get all the thanks it has too, as it just shows that I am right as ever about this thread and the majority who post in it, given that it shows the kind of thing which you all would be happy to see: a sports star being invited to the White House and then disrespecting Trump when there.

Sadly for you all though, it was fake news and that's from the man himself:


https://twitter.com/stras37/status/1191498539458867206

But sure what can you expect from swamp dweller who writes for the Washington Post but a deliberately edited video to make it appear as if Trump was snubbed when he wasn't.

Here's what really happened:


https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1191506955413659648

gizmo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But sure what can you expect from swamp dweller who writes for the Washington Post but a deliberately edited video to make it appear as if Trump was snubbed when he wasn't.

Well, I wouldn't expect the guy who posted the tweet with, one presumes, their edited video, to be the Executive Director of the Center for Equal Opportunity, an organisation which refers to itself as "The Nation's only conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity" on its own website. The bylines he claims for the Washington Post also appear to originate solely from the D.C. Sports Bog, the light-hearted sports blog section from the site of said paper.

The second gentleman whose tweet you quoted, Josh Jordan, actually has a pretty interesting timeline. Not only did he quite rightly call out Rudy Gersten for both his original tweet and his now-deleted follow up where he appeared to double down rather than apologise, but he also appears to be one of those Republican supporters who have an immense dislike for what his party has become over the last number of years. Special mention must go to this from a couple of days ago...

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1191164524176560128

Due diligence works both ways, Pete.

aloyisious

In response to a parliamentary question in Westminster last night if the London Times story of AG Barr asking the UK Govt for information on what its intelligence services knew of Mr J Mifsud's activities, the minister answering for Mr Johnson stated the Govt position was that it did not reveal information related to intelligence matters. He went on to say that the Govt did not COLLUDE with anyone, which I take to be a very pointed diplomatic message to Mr Barr.