It is currently 03/28/24 8:08 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next   Page 3 of 9   [ 204 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/15/19 2:01 pm • # 51 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
A 2d conservative "prominent legal scholar" speaks out ~ I see a trend here ~ but how many will it take to make the GOP claw their way off a sinking ship? ~ :ey ~ the DiC is definitely toast, folks ~ it's just a matter of time ~ Sooz

Prominent legal scholar rips Trump anti-impeachment letter to House Democrats: ‘The White House counsel was sick the day they taught law at law school’
Written by Alex Henderson October 15, 2019

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone last week sent an angry letter to four prominent House Democrats — including Speaker Nancy Pelosi — attacking their impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Legal experts have been tearing that letter apart, including conservative attorney George Conway— who denounced Cipollone’s arguments as “garbage” during an appearance on former federal prosecutor Preet Bharara’s podcast. And prominent legal scholar Ilya Somin has been highly critical of the letter as well, posting on Facebook that his “initial reaction” was “to wonder whether the White House counsel was sick the day they taught law at law school.”

Somin added, “Yes, it’s that bad. If one of my students made those arguments in a paper, I don’t think I could give that person a passing grade.”

Somin is by no means a Democratic Party operative. A law professor at George Mason University, Somin is a right-wing libertarian who has been active in the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) and holds many conservative views.

In his letter to Pelosi and the heads of three congressional committees, Cipollone insisted he could not “permit his administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances” and insisted that the impeachment inquiry lacked “any legitimate constitutional foundation.” And a group of 21 attorneys found those arguments to be absurd, responding with a letter of their own.

Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry because of his July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his attempt to pressure the Ukrainian president to help dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. And the 21 attorneys stressed that an impeachment inquiry is perfectly in sync with the U.S. Constitution.

“When any president openly invites the help of foreign powers for partisan political purposes,” the 21 lawyers asserted, “Congress in the exercise of its constitutional powers should conduct an inquiry — and the White House should cooperate. Fair-minded lawyers can easily agree on this regardless of their politics. Your letter, instead, distorts the law and the Constitution for other purposes, including cable news consumption.”

Somin is quoted extensively in a Vox article on legal scholars’ reactions to the White House counsel’s letter. And the libertarian explains, “the impeachment power belongs to the House. It applies in situations where there is reason to believe the president has committed ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.’ The founders drafted the impeachment clause to cover a wide range of abuses of power, including ones where there is no violation of criminal law. If Trump withheld aid from Ukraine in an attempt to pressure them into investigating a political opponent, he likely both violated the Constitution and committed a crime.”

Somin went on to say, “Once the House has decided to conduct an impeachment inquiry, it must have the power to subpoena witnesses and compel submission of relevant evidence. If the president could conceal evidence and ignore subpoenas, Congress’ constitutional authority over impeachment would be seriously undermined. Indeed, failure to cooperate with a congressional impeachment process is itself likely an impeachable offense.”

https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/prominent-conservative-legal-scholar-rips-trump-anti-impeachment-letter-to-house-democrats-the-white-house-counsel-was-sick-the-day-they-taught-law-at-law-school/


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/16/19 8:06 am • # 52 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
I'm looking forward to Bolton's testimony although I can't stand the prick. :popcorn


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/22/19 5:03 pm • # 53 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
The internet is over-loaded with devastating reports of diplomat Bill Taylor's testimony in Congress today ~ this is a good place to start ~ more to come ~ Sooz

Nicolle Wallace explains why ‘Donald Trump’s impeachment may have been turbocharged today’
Published on October 22, 2019 / By Bob Brigham

MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace broke down how impeachment was “turbocharged” by explosive testimony from former Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor.

“Donald Trump’s impeachment may have been turbocharged today by the testimony of career diplomat Bill Taylor, who NBC News is reporting draws a direct line to President Trump demanding an investigation in exchange for military aid for Ukraine,” Wallace reported.

The “Deadline: White House” host read a quote from The Washington Post.

“The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine told lawmakers Tuesday that President Trump made the release of military aid contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain,” The Post reported.

“It was just the most damning testimony I’ve heard,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told The Post.

Wallace also quoted from Politico.

“William Taylor prompted sighs and gasps when he read a lengthy 15-page opening statement, two of the sources said.” Politico reported. “Another person in the room said Taylor’s statement described ‘how pervasive the efforts were’ among Trump’s allies to convince Ukrainian officials to launch an investigation targeting former Vice President Joe Biden and another probe centering on a debunked conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election.”

Trump’s defense that there was no quid pro quo is not holding up.

“A source witnessing Taylor’s experiences dealing with the Trump Administration’s Ukraine policy tells NBC News today, “Everybody in Ukraine knew it was a quid pro quo. Everybody.” There’s no question Trump was holding the money and the White House meeting,” Wallace noted. And before Taylor even stepped foot on Capitol Hill for today’s deposition, his outrage was revealed through documents turned over to congressional investigators by other witnesses including this now-infamous text exchange with Trump appointee Gordon Sondland.”

Watch: [Video accessible via the end link.]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/nicolle-wallace-explains-why-donald-trumps-impeachment-may-have-been-turbocharged-today/


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/22/19 5:20 pm • # 54 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I sure hope Bill Taylor has significant security lined up for the foreseeable future ~ :ey ~ Sooz

‘Do it in public’: Here are 7 explosive details from Bill Taylor’s impeachment inquiry testimony
Written by Cody Fenwick / October 22, 2019

Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor testified to the House of Representatives as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Tuesday, and a release of his prepared remarks showed that he has blown the case against the president wide open.

While most of the damning evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing has been public for nearly a month now, Taylor’s account provides revealing details and confirms the most damaging inferences a reasonable observer would have had about the Ukraine scandal.

Here are seven key details in his remarks:

1. There was no explanation for Trump’s delay of military aid to Ukraine. The Defense Department affirmed the need for the aid.

Taylor testified that, as was publicly known, Trump delayed congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine on July 18. But Taylor revealed that no explanation was given for this delay at the time — even to Taylor himself, who was serving as the acting ambassador to this country, which deeply disturbed him.

He even noted this: “At one point, the Defense Department was asked to perform an analysis of the effectiveness of the assistance. Within a day, the Defense Department came back with the determination that the assistance was effective and should be resumed.”

These facts continue to undercut the already deeply implausible claims from Trump and his defenders that the president had legitimate reasons to delay the aid.

2. Taylor had long-running concerns about Rudy Giuliani’s backchanneling of a secondary Ukraine policy.

He said that even before he joined the administration following a May 28 meeting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, “I worried about what I had heard concerning the role of Rudolph Giuliani, who had made several high-profile statements about Ukraine and U.S. policy toward the country.”

As he discovered Giuliani’s deep involvement in diplomacy with the country, he only became more alarmed.

3. Ukrainians were troubled by the lack of aid, and there were lives on the line while Trump held up the assistance.

While much of the discussion of the Ukraine scandal focuses on the important stakes it has for U.S politics, Taylor’s testimony helpfully focused on the costs Trump’s machinations had on the beleaguered American ally.

In defending Trump in the Ukraine scandal, many have claimed that the president’s delay of military aid was not linked to the investigations the president wanted President Volodymyr Zelensky to carry out. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney undercut this argument last week by saying that the investigation of the 2016 election was directly tied to the holdup in military aid, though he tried to claim later that he didn’t say what he said. Some have pointed out that, in Trump’s famous call with Zelensky on July 25 — in which the U.S. president explicitly asked for the investigation of 2016 and of Joe Biden — he didn’t explicitly mention the military aid delay, and Ukrainians weren’t aware of the aid at the time.

But Taylor’s testimony makes clear that, eventually, the Ukrainians were aware of the delayed aid as Trump’s demands for investigations continued. On Aug. 29, Taylor was contacted by Andriy Yermak, a Ukrainian official, about the delayed aid, and the ambassador said he was “embarrassed” that he couldn’t explain the hold. He said Yermak was “very concerned.”

Taylor also made clear that the security assistance was a matter of life and death of the Ukrainians.

“Over 13,000 Ukrainians had been killed in the war, one or two a week. More Ukrainians would undoubtedly die without the U.S. assistance,” he said.

4. After it was public that the military aid to Ukraine was delayed, Trump kept pushing for the investigations of his political opponents.

At several subsequent points, Trump and his officials make clear to the Ukrainians that they still want the investigations. These overtures come from Vice President Mike Pence, who was asked about the aid directly by Zelensky and responded by saying “he wanted the Ukrainians to do more to fight corruption,” Taylor explained. This was coded language Trump has used to discuss the investigations.

Taylor also said: “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.” (Burisma is the oil company where Hunter Biden served on the board; Trump has repeatedly claimed that Vice President Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine is therefore corrupt and should be criminally investigated.) Taylor added: “This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigations.”

5. Trump claimed he wasn’t asking for a quid pro quo — but he demanded Ukraine do what he wanted in order to receive the aid.

Taylor’s testimony makes clear that, even while Trump repeatedly insisted that he wasn’t demanding a quid pro quo from the Ukrainians, his actions revealed that it was exactly what he was asking for. Discussing Trump’s demands of Zelensky, Taylor recounted:

Quote:
[Ambassador Sondland] said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up in public, we would be at a “stalemate.” I understood “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.”

Some will surely continue to argue that Trump’s denial of a quid pro quo is exculpatory. But in fact, it’s the opposite. Because Trump’s actions clearly demonstrate that he’s seeking to arrange a quid pro quo, the fact that he is at the same time denying this obvious reality indicates that he was aware that what he is doing is wrong and was trying to cover it up.

6. Sondland’s defense of Trump is damning.

Taylor recounted:

Quote:
Ambassador Sondalnd tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador Volker used the same terms several days later while we were together at the Yalta Europena Strategy Conference. I argued to both that the explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not “owe” President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for political gain was “crazy,” as I said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9.

This explanation of Trump’s actions actually sounds very plausible — and it confirms he was corruptly acting for his own ends, not for the national interest.

7. Taylor said that the investigations explicitly included the ask for dirt on Biden, including, potentially, in a CNN interview.

Taylor confirms, as has long been denied but has been obvious, that Trump’s pressure on Ukraine tied in directly to his ask for an investigation into Joe Biden, a potential 2020 opponent. He said he did not hear the July 25 phone call in which Trump explicitly mentioned the Bidens to Zelensky, but he said, “I had come to understand … that ‘investigations’ was a term that Ambassadors Volker and Sondalnd used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections, and to investigations of Burisma and the Bidens.”

He also revealed, for the first time, that Zelensky apparently had plans to give an interview to CNN announcing the investigations after meeting with Sondland. This would amount to a de facto campaign ad for the Trump 2020 re-elect. That interview never happened, and the aid was eventually released as it came under increasing scrutiny.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/do-it-in-public-here-are-7-explosive-details-from-bill-taylors-impeachment-inquiry-testimony/


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/22/19 5:34 pm • # 55 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
If you have the time and the stomach, read "Taylor's full opening statement" live-linked below ~ :eek ~ Sooz

‘This testimony is a sea change’: Why Trump’s impeachment probe could ‘accelerate’ after massive revelations
Written by Julia Conley / Common Dreams / October 22, 2019

“Explosive” closed-door testimony on Tuesday from William Taylor, a career diplomat who questioned the Trump administration’s attempts over the summer to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, could begin a “sea change” in House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against the president, according to lawmakers who were in the room.

Taylor gave a detailed account to the House Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs committees of the administration’s “pervasive” attempts to convince Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden, his son Hunter’s position at a Ukrainian oil company, and a debunked conspiracy theory regarding Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

In a July phone call with Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the E.U., in July, Taylor was told that a failure of Ukrainian President Volodymyr to publicly announce that he would launch the investigation would set off a deterioration of U.S.-Ukraine relations. Zelensky would not be invited to the White House and military aid would be withheld, Sondland said, unless he made the statement.

“Amb. Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,'” Taylor testified to committee members on Tuesday. “He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”

Read Taylor’s full opening statement here.

Nearly $400 million in U.S. military aid for Ukraine was put on hold around the time of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky that’s at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) told Politico that Taylor provided “the most thorough accounting we’ve had of the timeline” and suggested the envoy had provided the committees with corroborating evidence.

“This testimony is a sea change,” Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Politico. “I think it could accelerate matters. This will, I think, answer more questions than it raises.”

Gasps were reportedly heard from lawmakers throughout Taylor’s testimony, which began after House Democrats issued a subpoena following the State Department’s attempt to block Taylor from speaking.

“The body language of the people hearing it was ‘holy shit,’ seriously,” Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), a member of the Oversight Committee, told Politico.

“All I have to say is that in my 10 short months in Congress—it’s not even noon, right—and this is my most disturbing day in Congress so far,” Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters. “Very troubling.”

The progressive advocacy group Stand Up America said that following the testimony, Republicans in Congress are “out of excuses” and must vote to impeach Trump.

“Today’s bombshell testimony proves without a shadow of a doubt that Donald Trump used military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a political rival,” said Sean Eldridge, president of the group. “Republicans in Congress must do their jobs and uphold their oath to defend our Constitution by voting to impeach and remove Donald Trump.”

“No one—including the criminal in the White House—is above the law,” he added.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/this-testimony-is-a-sea-change-why-trumps-impeachment-probe-could-accelerate-after-massive-revelations/


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/24/19 9:35 am • # 56 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Republicans Try To Storm Impeachment Room, Break Rules In Process
Lawmakers bumrushed a secure room while carrying their cell phones, ignoring House rules.

By Matt Fuller, Arthur Delaney

n the latest attempts to make a circus out of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s dealings with the Ukrainian government, a contingent of House Republicans stormed a secure room in the Capitol basement Wednesday, disrupting a deposition and violating House rules by bringing their phones into a secure area.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), whose chief of staff sent an email to Republican legislators’ offices last week about holding a press conference outside the guarded committee room, led the group of roughly 30 lawmakers into the Intelligence Committee’s secure area. And because the Republicans, who are not members of the committee, brought phones and other electronics into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), Democrats said the room would now have to be “sanitized.”

“They not only brought in their unauthorized bodies, they may have brought in the Russians and the Chinese,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Image
The scene outside a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) where a closed session before the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees took place on Wednesday. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) held a press conference prior to the walk-in to call for “transparency in impeachment inquiry.”


Swalwell added that some Republican members held onto their phones even after the Sergeant at Arms asked that they remove them from the area. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) later reported that he personally collected phones from Republicans and took them out of the SCIF.

The storming of the committee room came as the Intelligence Committee was set to interview Laura Cooper, a Pentagon employee who oversaw Ukrainian issues. Cooper was in the room as Republicans barged through the door, and committee staff moved her into another area. Republicans have complained for weeks that the committee isn’t allowing non-members to sit in on proceedings or review transcripts, and they say there needs to be transparency with the whole process. Several Republicans who stormed the room already had legitimate access to the depositions.

Democrats argue that, while investigating Trump’s efforts to get the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, it’s imperative that witnesses not have the ability to coordinate stories. They also say that the testimony will eventually be made public, and there will also be public proceedings.

Republicans have obsessed over the process Democrats are following, saying it’s too secretive and unfair to the president.

“It’s finally reached a boiling point where members just said they are so frustrated at the idea that they can’t be a part of this and see what’s going on,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Wednesday.

Jordan did acknowledge that the Republicans shouldn’t have brought phones into the SCIF.

“They’re not used to this,” he said. “They walked in, soon as they were told that, they sent their phones out. It was a mistake, so no big deal.”

But Democrats see the whole ordeal as a much bigger issue.

For one, they believe Republicans taking over the committee room Wednesday was an attempt to intimidate Cooper and other witnesses. They also think Republicans are trying to hold up the proceedings and make a mockery of the investigation.

“The tactics are an effort to delay the inevitable,” Swalwell said. “They are a response to just damaging and pulverizing testimony yesterday from a courageous ambassador in Bill Taylor.”

Taylor testified Tuesday that Trump did indeed solicit a quid pro quo from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Taylor documented that a White House meeting between Zelensky and Trump was “connected” to Zelensky opening an investigation into the Ukrainian energy company upon whose board Hunter Biden sat, and an additional investigation into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

While Jordan said he wasn’t allowed to discuss other depositions, he claimed that the additional context of other people’s statements indicated that Taylor had not really shown that there was a quid pro quo.

Jordan noted that Zelensky “didn’t go out and make a statement” about investigating the Bidens, as Trump allegedly wanted. But that may be because Taylor himself repeatedly asked a member of Zelensky’s cabinet to confirm there would be no announcement after one had reportedly been scheduled.

“That’s my point,” Jordan said. “He didn’t make a statement.”

Meadows, for his part, toed a similar line. He said previous witnesses had contradicted Taylor’s claims of a quid pro quo, and that Taylor contradicted himself later in his testimony.

“I think what he said was, is that he was told ― or that he believed that ― but he had no first hand knowledge,” Meadows said.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) also said Taylor’s testimony had been contradicted by earlier statements from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who said there had been “no quid pro quo.” But both Sondland and Taylor’s testimony indicated that Sondland was merely repeating what the president had told him.

Moreover, Democrats have been resolute in saying that there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo for there to have been an impeachable act. President Trump merely using his office to pressure a foreign country into dredging up dirt on a political opponent is enough. With each passing day, however, every statement from the president’s chief of staff, material witnesses and even the president himself certainly seems to indicate that there was a quid pro quo and that Trump wholly abused his office.

Republicans continue to ignore those damning allegations, instead focusing on the process playing out in the Intelligence Committee room. But their efforts to make the investigation a circus may only backfire on themselves.

The hostile takeover of the committee room, which was endorsed by GOP leadership ― the chamber’s No. 2 Republican, Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), even participated in the charade ― is the latest in a string of attempts to distract from the actual Ukraine scandal. Republicans are trying to get voters to dig into their familiar partisan foxholes and disregard any new information.

But storming through the “Restricted Area” doors of the SCIF, bringing their phones, occupying the committee room for hours — even ordering pizza ― are all charades that unbiased voters should see through.

Gaetz, who is leading the efforts, was already kicked out of the committee room when he tried a similar stunt by himself weeks ago. Now he’s enlisting more and more Republicans to join his performative defense of the president.

In a “look-at-me” move that’s almost too on the nose, Gaetz also broke House rules Wednesday when his staff handed out expired congressional passes to some uncredentialed reporters and the crew of HBO’s “The Swamp.” The show is following Gaetz’s efforts to combat the impeachment process, and his office gave about 10 crew members and reporters expired passes to another room in the Capitol, according to a GOP staffer familiar with the situation. There is a formal process for credentialing members of the congressional press corps, and those reporters and crew members were kicked out of the Capitol by police.

“I don’t manage the press passes for camera crews,” Gaetz said when asked if his SCIF stunt had followed the rules regarding phones and press credentials. “So I don’t really think I’m in position to answer that question.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story reported that Gaetz’s chief of staff emailed Republican offices about entering the SCIF, but the email only said they would hold a press conference outside.

SOURCE

vid at source


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/25/19 5:08 am • # 57 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Quote:
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

This is what the Republicans are doing right now. They know that they can't argue the facts and they can't argue the law.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/25/19 6:18 am • # 58 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
Republicans' absurd complaints about impeachment inquiry access are historically ignorant
In comparison to the Watergate inquiry, House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff is actually being very transparent and collegial.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/republicans-absurd-complaints-about-impeachment-inquiry-access-are-historically-ignorant-ncna1071751


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/25/19 6:27 am • # 59 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano just DESTROYED Republicans over their “secret impeachment” complaints.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrat ... live_video


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/25/19 2:26 pm • # 60 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
As is his wont, the DiC apparently conveniently "forgot" that "paybacks" can definitely be hellish ~ :ey ~ Sooz

John Bolton’s lawyers in talks to give deposition to impeachment investigators: report
Published on October 25, 2019 | By Matthew Chapman

On Friday, sources reported that lawyers representing President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton are in talks with the House committees conducting the impeachment inquiry, to discuss the possibility of Bolton giving a deposition:

Quote:
Shimon Prokupecz ✔
@ShimonPro

!!! John Bolton’s lawyers have consulted with the impeachment inquiry committees about a possible deposition. @kylieatwood

8:12 AM - Oct 25, 2019

Bolton, who was recently forced out by Trump allegedly over policy disagreements, witnessed some of the apparent scheme to withhold military aid to Ukraine to try to force their leaders to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. He allegedly was uncomfortable with these developments, and criticized Rudy Giuliani, who has been orchestrating this scheme, as a “hand grenade” and compared him to a drug dealer.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/john-boltons-lawyers-in-talks-to-give-deposition-to-impeachment-investigators-report/


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/30/19 6:43 am • # 61 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace just went viral with a MUST-SEE comeback to Republican smear campaigns. **Watch until the end**

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrat ... live_video


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/30/19 8:46 pm • # 62 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
America’s Deputy Secretary of State just put the FINAL nail in Trump’s coffin! This spells doom for Giuliani and Trump... (we can only hope)

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrat ... live_video


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 10/31/19 10:04 am • # 63 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Another step forward ~ :st ~ bolding below is mine ~ Sooz

House Passes Impeachment Procedures Measure, Setting Stage For Public Hearings
By Tierney Sneed | October 31, 2019 11:33 am

A resolution outlining the next steps in the House impeachment inquiry passed in a largely party line 232-196 floor vote Thursday.

The resolution paves the way for open hearings in the inquiry, as Democrats prepare to present to the public what their investigation into President Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign has yielded. It also comes as Republicans have focused their defense of the President on the inquiry’s process, which so far has taken place by behind closed doors.

“This resolution sets the stage for the next phase in our investigation, one in which the American people will have the opportunity to hear from the witnesses firsthand,” said House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Despite provisions in the resolution requiring an open hearing and a public report on the inquiry’s findings, as well as various due process rights for the President, no Republicans ultimately voted for the resolution. Two Democrats also voted against it.

“Trying to put a ribbon on a sham process doesn’t make it less of a sham,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the top Oversight Committee Republican, said before the vote.

GOP leadership, along with the President, worked aggressively to whip the few Republicans who have appeared open to the inquiry against the measure.

The impeachment inquiry is looking at a shadow foreign policy operation President Trump and his personal allies launched in Ukraine seeking investigations into Trump’s political rivals. Trump withheld a meeting with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, and it appears, congressionally authorized military aid, according to some of the witnesses who have testified privately.

The scandal was bubbling within the White House for months, but was blown open with an anonymous whistleblower complaint outlining the allegations. The bulk of the complaint has been corroborated by witnesses in the inquiry, and the chief claim — that Trump requested investigations into the DNC and Joe Biden on a July 25 phone call with Zelensky — was confirmed when the White House released its rough transcript of the call.

“What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said in a floor speech before the vote.

Trump claims the call was “perfect” and his White House has ordered the administration not to cooperate with the probe, alleging the Democrats’ inquiry was illegitimate.

In a statement after the vote, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said House Democrats “have done nothing more than enshrine unacceptable violations of due process into House rules.”

“The Democrats want to render a verdict without giving the Administration a chance to mount a defense. That is unfair, unconstitutional, and fundamentally un-American,” she said.

The resolution approved Thursday lays out the protocols for public hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, which so far has been leading the probe, and the Judiciary Committee, which will ultimately put together articles of impeachment. It gives House Republicans, and the President, opportunities to request witnesses and offer other evidence — though those requests will have to be approved by either the committee chair or with a vote by the committee. It also gives the President’s lawyer the opportunity to raise objections and cross-examine witnesses in the Judiciary Committee hearings.

While Democrats have promised to move “expeditiously” with the proceedings, it’s unclear whether they’ll finish by the end of the year, as some had hoped — let alone Thanksgiving, the deadline floated early on in the probe.

Congress has seen several administration witnesses defy the White House’s directive and appear for testimony. Some of those witness have also expressed openness to testifying publicly when that stage arrives.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/house-votes-impeachment-resolution


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/01/19 5:38 am • # 64 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Interesting that the vote on the "witch hunt" took place on Halloween.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/01/19 5:45 am • # 65 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
Ignoring the fact that the document in question clearly states that it's not a transcript .....

Trump says he wants to read Ukraine call transcript in televised 'fireside chat'

By Louis Casiano

President Trump said Thursday he may read the transcript of his July 25 telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky aloud to Americans in the style of the famous fireside chats delivered by President Franklin Roosevelt during the 1930s and 1940s.

“This is over a phone call that is a good call,” Trump said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. "At some point, I’m going to sit down, perhaps as a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call, because people have to hear it. When you read it, it’s a straight call.”

Roosevelt delivered a series of informal radio addresses, dubbed fireside chats, meant to garner support for his New Deal policies and update Americans on the course of World War II, among other issues.

A public reading of the call transcript would mark the latest effort by Trump to thwart the impeachment inquiry against him by congressional Democrats. The president has repeatedly denied Democratic claims that he withheld crucial military aid to Kiev in order to press Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Several witnesses have raised concerns over the call. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who serves as a director on the National Security Council (NSC), testified privately before Congress this week that he was alarmed by Trump's request to Zelensky.

“Everybody knows I did nothing wrong,” Trump told the Examiner. “Bill Clinton did things wrong; Richard Nixon did things wrong. I won’t go back to [Andrew] Johnson because that was a little before my time. But they did things wrong. I did nothing wrong.”

During the interview, Trump said he was being responsible by reviewing aid to Ukraine, a country with a history of endemic corruption.

“We are giving them money, we are giving them weapons,” he said. “We have an obligation to look at corruption.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... television

Vid and live links at source


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/01/19 6:37 am • # 66 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
LMAO.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/01/19 7:36 am • # 67 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
shiftless2 wrote:
Interesting that the vote on the "witch hunt" took place on Halloween.

Seems to me to be a perfect example of Schadenfreude! ~ :b

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/01/19 1:39 pm • # 68 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
The comments on the article linked in #65 would be funny if they weren't indicative of the beliefs of a significant percentage of the American public.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/01/19 2:32 pm • # 69 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Can you imagine him sitting in a leather easy chair before a roaring fire, wearing a tweed sweater and open necked plaid shirt and smoking pipe in hand re-enacting his telephone conversation with the Ukrainian President?


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/07/19 5:36 am • # 70 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
"I would like to open this evening with a breathless update about how some obscure diplomat you've never heard of said something forgettable to an even more obscure Ukrainian government official about a topic that literally has nothing to do with your life or the future of our country." ~ Fox News' Tucker Carlson beginning his show last night


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/07/19 1:54 pm • # 71 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
Did you read Giuliani's latest defence of Grabem. He says the whole administration is too incoherent to formulate a quid pro quo.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/07/19 3:19 pm • # 72 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
clearly he is wrong. you can hear it in the telephone call.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/08/19 12:33 am • # 73 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I can just see the whole administrative team gathered around Grbem's desk pouring over dictionaries and shouting "WTF is a quid pro quo? WTF is a quid pro quo?"


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/08/19 6:09 am • # 74 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 12/27/16
Posts: 10841
And Donny Jr gets called out to his face

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrat ... live_video

Have to say I'm amazed (amused?) at the number of people who are still insisting that the document released by the WH is a complete record of the call when the document itself clearly says that it's not a transcript.


Top
  
 Offline
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment?
PostPosted: 11/11/19 11:12 am • # 75 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
The entire GOP is officially a circus of absolute morons ~ :tearhair ~ Sooz

On impeachment, GOP witness list reads like a cry for help
11/11/19 10:03 AM—Updated 11/11/19 10:39 AM
By Steve Benen

In September 2013, after lawmakers were told it was time to raise the debt ceiling, the then-Republican majority put together an almost comical wish-list/ransom-note, filled with demands the GOP expected the Obama administration to meet.

Republicans said they would agree to raise the federal debt limit, preventing a global crisis, but only if Democrats delayed implementation of the ACA, approved the Keystone XL pipeline, imposed Medicare means testing, made the Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory-reform law more Wall Street friendly, increased oil drilling, and ended the EPA’s efforts to combat the climate crisis.

Ezra Klein wrote at the time that the list showed the Republican-led House was no longer “a sane place.” Ezra added, “The House GOP’s debt limit bill … isn’t a serious governing document. It’s not even a plausible opening bid. It’s a cry for help.”

Six years later, Republican leaders have some ideas about the witnesses who should testify in the House impeachment inquiry as it advances to its next phase, which includes public hearings that begin this week. But reading the GOP’s witness list, it doesn’t strike me as a plausible opening bid – it seems more like a cry for help. The Washington Post reported over the weekend:

Quote:
House Republicans on Saturday pressed ahead with their efforts to move the impeachment inquiry away from President Trump, calling on Democrats to add witnesses to the probe including former vice president Joe Biden’s son and the whistleblower whose initial complaint kicked off the investigation. […]

The sprawling list of potential witnesses named by Republicans on Saturday … included Hunter Biden, whose father is a leading Democratic candidate to challenge Trump in 2020; Hunter Biden’s business partner Devon Archer; the unnamed whistleblower, who Trump and some of his allies have campaigned to publicly identify; the researcher Nellie Ohr of Fusion GPS, which commissioned a dossier linking Russia and Trump; and Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian American who worked with the Democratic National Committee.

This is not a list compiled by officials who are serious about the inquiry.

Of course, as a procedural matter, House Republicans, from their minority perch, can’t simply call whatever witnesses they want. Rather, their wish list was turned over to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who soon after explained that the impeachment probe would not serve “to carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about 2016 U.S. election interference” that Trump asked Ukraine to conduct.

Or put another way, the Republicans’ requested witness list probably won’t be taken too seriously by the House majority. The interesting thing is to consider what happens after the document ends up in the circular file in Schiff’s office.

It’s not hard to imagine how the dominoes are likely fall. Schiff will dismiss the House GOP’s witness list as ridiculous, at which point Republicans will (again) denounce the impeachment inquiry as unfair. They’ve already made these claims, of course, and they’ve been discredited, but the complaints have never been conveyed as an accurate point rooted in good faith. The GOP’s audience has been the electorate at large, which Republicans hope to sway through dubious process claims.

But that’s not the only intended audience. I also wonder whether Senate Republicans, who’d be responsible for holding the impeachment “trial” in the event the House approves articles, might use something like this as an excuse to short-circuit the proceedings.

Indeed, by some measure, it’s already begun. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), doing lasting harm to what’s left of his reputation, told Fox News yesterday the impeachment inquiry would be “invalid” unless the intelligence community’s whistleblower is exposed.

That’s bonkers, but it’s where the debate appears to be headed.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-gop-witness-list-reads-cry-help#break


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next   Page 3 of 9   [ 204 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.