President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Interesting chain of events now that it is being reported in Bolton’s book that, according to him, Trump did tie the temporary hold on Ukrainian money to a Biden investigation.

Democrats are now chomping at the bit!

It seems Democrats are now interested in four witnesses testimonies: Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, John Bolton, and Michael Duffey. The White House will surely make claims of executive privilege of all four. The Democrats might only get Blair and Duffey to testify as executive privilege claims are their strongest when the people involved have regular dealings with the president and are involved with providing advice as in Bolton and Mulvaney. Blair and Duffey only carried out the president’s directive and implemented a hold on aid to Ukraine. Also, claims of executive privilege are strongest when they involve military or diplomatic secrets matters.

So is John Bolton a pissed off ex-employee or evil genius? The ‘bombshell’ is sure to make his new book an instant bestseller and make him lots of money. But Bolton is also a strong constitutionalist, and it is highly doubtful he’d defy claims of executive privilege by the president. If he's just pissed at Trump he'll never work in Washington again, unless he becomes the new darling of MSNBC or CNN, but then it will only be short term.

You can't claim executive privilege for senate impeachments, Nixon tried and failed

kowloon

manual_man wrote: »

Correction: what i meant to say is that they have issued a greater number of subpoenas than the number of bills that have been passed into law

As for your reply to which i'm responding now: I've reported it. We can all make mistakes or simply disagree on issues, but i think a simple rule is to not make things personal in the way you just did.

I didn't make it personal, you ignored the question when asked, so I think it was fair to say it throws other claims into doubt until that was still unaddressed.
As for bills not being enacted: The parties simply aren't working together, you can't reasonably point the blame at one party.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Interesting chain of events now that it is being reported in Bolton’s book that, according to him, Trump did tie the temporary hold on Ukrainian money to a Biden investigation.

Pretty funny his defense team are continuing on with their lies today with that massive elephant in the room watching them.

It's hilarious actually.

Manic Moran

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah that is exactly how it happens. as simple as that. :rolleyes:

Depends on the State, as different States have different standards, but it is a definite possibility in a few of them. (Some States require that the petition be brought to the court by police, others, the ex-girlfriend can do it) Note that as these are civil, not criminal issues, the respondent has no right to an attorney. Indeed, in some States, there is no requirement that anyone even ask the respondent to show up at the court to put up a defense.

For this reason, for example, the ACLU objected to the recent Red Flag Law signed into force by California.
https://ktla.com/2019/10/11/new-california-law-adopts-broadest-rules-for-seizing-guns-in-the-u-s/

The ACLU said the bill “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” because orders can be sought before gun owners have an opportunity to contest the requests.

Those allowed to request orders under the new law may “lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment,” the ACLU said.

Other states they have other positions. They were neutral on Colorado's implementation as they felt there were enough due process protections, but were very opposed to what Rhode Island put forward, until it was watered down a lot.

manual_man

kowloon wrote: »

I didn't make it personal, you ignored the question when asked, so I think it was fair to say it throws other claims into doubt until that was still unaddressed.
As for bills not being enacted: The parties simply aren't working together, you can't reasonably point the blame at one party.

Well it seemed personal to me. I don't answer every question on here, and i don't expect anyone else to do likewise. However if i've made a mistake and realize it then i'll admit to it.

You're right they aren't working together. It's certainly not good. And i've said that i can understand people questioning McConnell's decision re. Garland (while also explaining that it wouldn't in reality have made any actual difference). I've pointed out other facts too. Senate Democrats actions in 2013 really set the tone for everything that has followed. Bitter partisanship.

And Senate Democrats unprecedented and deliberate slow-walking of Trump's judicial nominations ever since he took office was always going to add to the hostility - and so McConnell and Senate Republicans have, i guess, responded in kind as regards legislation passed through the House since Democrats took control in 2018...

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Interesting chain of events now that it is being reported in Bolton’s book that, according to him, Trump did tie the temporary hold on Ukrainian money to a Biden investigation.

Democrats are now chomping at the bit!

It seems Democrats are now interested in four witnesses testimonies: Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair, John Bolton, and Michael Duffey. The White House will surely make claims of executive privilege of all four. The Democrats might only get Blair and Duffey to testify as executive privilege claims are their strongest when the people involved have regular dealings with the president and are involved with providing advice as in Bolton and Mulvaney. Blair and Duffey only carried out the president’s directive and implemented a hold on aid to Ukraine. Also, claims of executive privilege are strongest when they involve military or diplomatic secrets matters.

So is John Bolton a pissed off ex-employee or evil genius? The ‘bombshell’ is sure to make his new book an instant bestseller and make him lots of money. But Bolton is also a strong constitutionalist, and it is highly doubtful he’d defy claims of executive privilege by the president. If he's just pissed at Trump he'll never work in Washington again, unless he becomes the new darling of MSNBC or CNN, but then it will only be short term.

trump has publicly commented on boltons statements. executive privilege is out the window

kowloon

manual_man wrote: »

Well it seemed personal to me. I don't answer every question on here, and i don't expect anyone else to do likewise. However if i've made a mistake and realize it then i'll admit to it.

Fair enough, my apologies if my post was a little barbed.

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

And Senate Democrats unprecedented and deliberate slow-walking of Trump's judicial nominations ever since he took office was always going to add to the hostility - and so McConnell and Senate Republicans have, i guess, responded in kind as regards legislation passed through the House since Democrats took control in 2018...

That's the second time you have stated that, it's simply not true.

The Republicans did it whole sale under Obama.

It is the reason the filibuster for lower judges was done away with.

woohoo!!!

I thought the defence was decent there. Starr was meandering, eloquent but lacked relevance in the most part. The second guy put forward a rationale as to why there was a delay, that a meeting did occur and testimony that conflicted with the House Managers line. However, the context neglected the timing of a white blower and it being public knowledge of what was being alleged. Still though doing a decent job with what they've been handed.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

You can't claim executive privilege for senate impeachments, Nixon tried and failed

I believe you are incorrect that a president can't claim executive privilege in a senate impeachment when it comes to witnesses.

notobtuse

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I thought the defence was decent there. Starr was meandering, eloquent but lacked relevance in the most part. The second guy put forward a rationale as to why there was a delay, that a meeting did occur and testimony that conflicted with the House Managers line. However, the context neglected the timing of a white blower and it being public knowledge of what was being alleged. Still though doing a decent job with what they've been handed.

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe you are incorrect that a president can't claim executive privilege in a senate impeachment when it comes to witnesses.

Nope

July 9, the day following oral arguments, all eight justices (Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself due to his close association with several Watergate conspirators, including Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, prior to his appointment to the Court) indicated to each other that they would rule against the president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

and nope

https://www.justsecurity.org/68104/executive-privilege-is-no-bar-to-john-boltons-testimony-in-the-senate/

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

trump has publicly commented on boltons statements. executive privilege is out the window

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe you are incorrect that a president can't claim executive privilege in a senate impeachment when it comes to witnesses.

trump cannot now claim executive privilege on boltons statements

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

That's been proven incorrect and a plant by the IRA

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Seriously this conspiracy theory again? :rolleyes:

It's been debunked by Trumps own people.

manual_man

Boggles wrote: »

That's the second time you have stated that, it's simply not true.

The Republicans did it whole sale under Obama.

It is the reason the filibuster for lower judges was done away with.

The reason Democrats did away with the filibuster was not to do with slow-walking... It was to do with Democrats nominating judges who weren't receiving the support of a sufficient number of Senators... despite the Democrats having a 53-47 majority at the time. They were frustrated, and in making the ill conceived rule change, only ensured a widening of partisan divide.

woohoo!!!

notobtuse wrote: »

Then this article, from January 2017, gave public knowledge of Ukrainian involvement in the US 2016 election and reason for Trump to suspect corruption, and to do what was within his power to make sure public money was spent wisely.


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

What the trial and the submitted evudence has patently demonstrated and this is not disputed by the White House, US intelligence agencies and most accurately put by the FBI head, is that there is no (credible) indication that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections. It is nothing but Kremlin propaganda designed solely to take the spotlight of Russian actions which indeed are ongoing.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

That's been proven incorrect and a plant by the IRA

Please show us proof it was incorrect. Opinions don't count.

Boggles

manual_man wrote: »

The reason Democrats did away with the filibuster was not to do with slow-walking... It was to do with Democrats nominating judges who weren't receiving the support of a sufficient number of Senators... despite the Democrats having a 53-47 majority at the time. They were frustrated, and in making the ill conceived rule change, only ensured a widening of partisan divide.

Saying it yet again doesn't make it true, they indulged in slow walking wholesale and then just outright didn't confirm any picks.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/trumps-hollow-complaint/




So for the last time you are very much incorrect.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Please show us proof it was incorrect. Opinions don't count.

See wohoos reply

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

See wohoos reply

I did. Still looking for the proof.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

I did. Still looking for the proof.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-planted-conspiracy-ukraine-sabotaged-2016-campaign-washington-post-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-ukraine-joe-biden-russian-disinformation-election-tampering/

notobtuse

So, Alexander Vindman (one of the Democrat’s key witnesses who is trying to help Democrats impeach the President) has a twin brother in charge of reviewing all NSC publications including John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript. And suddenly it is leaked to the New York Times. And this guy is supposed to be the ethics lawyer for the NSC?

I’m suuuuuuure the manuscript being leaked to the New York Times was purely coincidental.

woohoo!!!

notobtuse wrote: »

I did. Still looking for the proof.

Who hacked the DNC in 2016? The answer to that answers your question. If you believe it was Russia, then the crowdstrike theory is false and note that investigations have determined it was Russia. However if you believe it was Ukraine, then you believe the crowdstrike theory for which there is no evidence. This is what Trump and his pals seem to believe.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-planted-conspiracy-ukraine-sabotaged-2016-campaign-washington-post-2019-12?r=US&IR=T

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-ukraine-joe-biden-russian-disinformation-election-tampering/

Thanks

"The Kremlin may have been.."

Somewhat lacking in verifiable details, I’d say. Were these agencies and sources the same one’s who claimed they had solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia?

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks

"The Kremlin may have been.."

Somewhat lacking in verifiable details, I’d say. Were these agencies and sources the same one’s who claimed they had solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia?

I suppose you know more than the director of the FBI then?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/fbi-director-wray-says-no-indication-ukraine-interference-2016-election/4380050002/

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473766-fbi-head-rejects-claims-of-ukrainian-2016-interference

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

I suppose you know more than the director of the FBI then?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/fbi-director-wray-says-no-indication-ukraine-interference-2016-election/4380050002/

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473766-fbi-head-rejects-claims-of-ukrainian-2016-interference

I know one former director of the FBI who is looking at potential jail time.

Rudy Giuliani stated over the weekend he has vast amounts of evidence to prove there was corruption by Ukraine and the Bidens and will be presenting it over the next several weeks.

It would be shocking if once again all this reporting by our wonderful media was wrong… NOT! I think we all have reason to be a little leery of what came out of the FBI regarding Trump before 2019. Let’s see what Rudy has.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I know one former director of the FBI who is looking at potential jail time.

Rudy Giuliani stated over the weekend he has vast amounts of evidence to prove there was corruption by Ukraine and the Bidens and will be presenting it over the next several weeks.

It would be shocking if once again all this reporting by our wonderful media was wrong… NOT! I think we all have reason to be a little leery of what came out of the FBI regarding Trump before 2019. Let’s see what Rudy has.

sure he does. rudy is really honest and truthful

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sure he does. rudy is really honest and truthful

And the FBI was? Three years of investigations based on lies by the FBI and sources that were fake. But that's okay, I guess.

The report by Wray came out in Dec 2019... five months after the call from Trump regarding Ukraine. Trump acted on the information he thought was reasonable at the time. Or is it okay for everyone else but Trump to act on information deemed plausible at the time?

woohoo!!!

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks

"The Kremlin may have been.."

Somewhat lacking in verifiable details, I’d say. Were these agencies and sources the same one’s who claimed they had solid proof that Trump colluded with Russia?

We know Trump believes it, he's said as much, it in part explains his hard for Bidens and Ukraine. Problem is, no evidence and he really should listen to his own people. But putin says so, so good enough for Trump. However this erroneous belief by Trump is precisely the thing that has landed himself in this whole mess. It's one thing for a random poster on here to be spouting conspiracy theories, it becomes a problem when the US president also is motivated by it, and acts contrary to actual US foreign policy, such is his dislike of Biden.

Interestingly we saw Trumps defence talking for about half a hour about Hunter Biden and a mere 5 minutes about Trumps official reasons for delaying aid to Ukraine. The actual defence, 5 minutes. Whataboutery, as much time as possible.