So you don’t care that Biden admitted to withholding foreign aid to get a Ukrainian official fired and you won’t admit your hypocrisy. Why then does anything else you say matter?
Coward Pelosi may throw tent on her own circus, not send impeachment to Senate
- Thread starter UCFKnight85
- Start date
You obviously didnt even try and comprehend what I typed. But If what I say doesnt matter to you that is more than fine with me and you are more than welcome to quit commenting on my posts. Have a good rest of the weekend.
Exactly. There are no threats, implicit or explicit for withholding aid. If only we could point to something like him saying "I'm leaving in 6 hours and if the prosecutor isn't fired you're not getting your billion dollars ". Idk, maybe trump is more subtle in his demands.
If Trump believes there is an issue,
1. Trump should ask his AG to investigate, not his lawyer
2. Trump literally asked him to announce the investigation on TV. There's no reason for that to be a stipulation if its not political gains.
You're picking an choosing what parts of the story to remember.
I like how you use the term "literally" here. There is no citation to be found anywhere that Trump did so, it was something that Taylor assumed to be the case because Sondland assumed it to be the case. Nowhere has anyone said that Trump actually told them he wanted that.
Regardless, I find this tidbit of information pretty interesting:
"Kulyk in 2018 compiled a seven-page, English-language dossier on the Bidens that accused Hunter Biden of corruption. He circulated the document, which also accused U.S. diplomats of covering up for crimes allegedly committed by the Bidens."
Odd that a year before the phone call, Ukraine was already investigating Bidens connection to Burisma, particularly when it's nothing more than a debunked conspiracy theory. According to Reuters, Ukraine is currently investigating Burisma and its owner (who has fled the country) and anticipate that it will extend to the Bidens. Their prosecutor general urged the US to investigate them as well. Of course we can't do that because Biden is a presidential candidate and it would give the appearance of using the US government to undermine a political rival (sound familiar?).
"Kulyk told The Hill that Ukrainian officials had unsuccessfully tried to pass on evidence on this and other probes to the U.S. authorities before looking for other people, including Giuliani, to present their findings."
Now why on earth would US officials not be interested in a ukranian prosecutor telling them that there's something worth investigating in regards to the Bidens? Also curious that he sought out Giuliani, not the other way around. It's almost as if what Sk8 said is true, that Giuliani was looking into other stuff and then this came up.
Now why on earth would US officials not be interested in a ukranian prosecutor telling them that there's something worth investigating in regards to the Bidens? Also curious that he sought out Giuliani, not the other way around. It's almost as if what Sk8 said is true, that Giuliani was looking into other stuff and then this came up.
Just a reminder: the HRC Campaign and the DNC knowingly sourced a political dirt dossier that they knew quite possibly originated from the Kremlin (and it did), sourced by a guy that the FBI cut ties with prior who couldn't verify ANY pertinent facts in the dossier, used that dossier as a feeder for the FBI to go get FISA warrant against the Trump campaign, then had their House Intel Committee Chair go on TV over 200 times in 2 years to claim that most of that dossier could be true.
The DNC establishment pushed a Russian disinformation document into the most inner circles of our intelligence communities and did so to discredit Trump.
But yea, Democrats really care about foreign meddling and stuff.
The DNC establishment pushed a Russian disinformation document into the most inner circles of our intelligence communities and did so to discredit Trump.
But yea, Democrats really care about foreign meddling and stuff.
Don’t forget that those FBI agents leaked details of the dossier to media so they could use the media reports as corroboration of the dossier. Later, the director of the FBI then leaked the dossier that he KNEW was false to the media hoping to spawn a Special Investigation. I want to know what Congressman like Schiff and Nadler knew about all of this before Comey leaked it to the media through his friend.
Don't forget about the part of how it led to an investigation where 3 people were charged with crimes unrelated to the actual investigation. Makes a person wonder why someone would be hesitant to comply with a subpoena. Hashtag scooter libby
Funny how inappropriate it is for a presidents private lawyer to do things in Ukraine, and yet Greg Craig did exactly that as Obama's lawyer and nobody says a word about it. Or ask why democrat pollsters like Alzanone or Bennison were in Ukraine. Or Tad Devine from the Sanders campaign. Seems like democrats have an awful lot of interest in Ukraine.
They have a ton of exposure. It’s a reason they’re on the offensive so strongly against Trump. This way they can claim anything that comes out about Democrats as being whataboutism or desperation. It’s not about reality, it’s all about fooling their dumb masses.
Let me start by saying I think it's ludicrous for Biden not to comply with a subpeona. That said, let's game this out for a minute.
Either in a regular hearing or impeachment trial, the Senate subpeona's Biden's records and or testimony. Biden responds by saying that he's deferring to the policy of the current VP's office and administration, which is that of total immunity from congressional subpeonas, and he sights Pat Cipilone's letter along with Pence's communications to the House. He might even do what Bolton did, which was to file a lawsuit in an attempt to get a ruling.
This would be a political stunt on Biden's part, but what would Republicans in the Senate do? They can't pursue action against Biden without harming the argument of the administration. If they do nothing, it makes the Senate's oversight powers moving forward look incredibly weak.
I highly doubt Biden was playing a long game like this but it does show the risk Republicans could assume by trying to compel him. The fact we can even have this discussion shows how ludicrous and damaging the administration's claims of immunity are.
Craig left the White House in 2010. His Ukraine stuff was after he left the White House counsel. He also went to trial though, which you conveniently left out. Devine was also questioned, though I don't think charged. What is also funny, is that both were investigated due to their ties to Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, not because of their ties to Obama or Sanders.
He has now said he would comply, so I guess this hypothetical scenario has worked itself out.
I dont like the whole blanket immunity thing but I can see why the courts have upheld it so many times. Get rid of it and we basically have a parliamentary system, which was never the design. OTOH, Congress was intended to be the most powerful branch of government but were expected to self-check their power. Kind of weird how it's gone the other direction, ceding so much power to the executive branch.
He can’t defer to the policy of the current administration because there’s no way Trump would include his information in executive privilege. Now, maybe he gets Obama to claim that his actions were covered under executive privilege at the time and that might be interesting. Again, you’re ignoring the very real and regularly used Executive privilege and the judicial remedy that has also been used. There is nothing ludicrous, extraordinary, or damaging about it. Go ask your Congressional representative why they haven’t challenged the privilege in court if you’re so worried about it.
On its face, immunity makes sense but only regarding foreign affairs. Both Trump and Biden may have crossed that line which is why both the house and Senate need to fully investigate. It is kind of interesting to me that department heads have immunity when they technically are leading departments that were created by Congress and that the directors have to be confirmed. It would seem like only the secretary of state and secretary of defense should enjoy the same immunity as the president.
This is pretty fascinating to think about. Why wouldn't a former VP receive the same protections as a current VP if the actions in question happened while he sat in office? If the president was of the same party as the former VP, I would guarantee that unless an action was criminal in nature the next president would give that protection.
Executive privilege exists for more than foreign interactions. It exists to protect the confidentiality of discussions and interactions that are necessary to govern and also where revealing such would impair the ability to govern. Presidents must consider many options when governing and it’s not often in our best interest for all of those discussions to become fodder in the media shit show.
Similarly, sometimes you have to deal with foreign parties in a manner that they understand and respond to. It doesn’t do the country any good for one party to pick out what is a normal way of doing business with a foreign country and then blow it up into some Democracy-threatening event because of unscrupulous partisan politics. In fact, that would be absolutely unconscionable when the public has no way to compare the dialogues of all the Presidents to see what is normal and what isn’t.
If the left would stop defending Biden (and Clinton before that), we could focus on Trump.
But the Progressive's 'I defend my party to the end' -- basically proving both the 'Deep State' and 'Media Bias' -- is only making more Trump supporters. They refuse to give up the hypocrisy, so Trump only becomes more powerful.
But the Progressive's 'I defend my party to the end' -- basically proving both the 'Deep State' and 'Media Bias' -- is only making more Trump supporters. They refuse to give up the hypocrisy, so Trump only becomes more powerful.
Quoting both of you guys here to lump the reply together.
First - The Supreme Court has never ruled on executive privilege as it relates to a conflict between the Executive and the Legislature. US v Nixon was a DOJ special prosecutor, not congress. In that ruling, they opined about executive privilege though they granted nothing to Nixon in that case. Several lower court rulings set the precedent, and they are absolutely nothing like the blanket immunity the Trump admin has asserted. In those cases, the privilege is narrow and weighed against other interests. If you guys can point me to something else please do. Source here.
Second - I'm not aware of Trump asserting any any executive privilege, as it's normally understood, through this entire Ukraine process. See Corey Lewandowski's testimony for reference. The White House issued a letter describing what Executive Privilege it was asserting and thus areas that he had been instructed not to testify regarding.
Third - The "total immunity" that this and previous White Houses have claimed was related to testimony of close advisors. This was the argument in the McGhan case. It has no case law precedent, but has decades of OLC opinion behind it. Spreading this beyond "close advisors" is, to my knowledge, new ground.
In this case, the WH letter was a blanket denial of congressional oversight at the whim of the Executive. This is not a well crafted and strategic implementation of Executive Privilege as constrained by the courts. There
Democratic staffers leaked transcripts of the Presidents calls with other foreign leaders to their jackass leftie friends in the media just to try and embarrass him. It utterly threatened the ability of the President to carry out foreign affairs and surely made foreign leaders think twice before speaking to a US President in the phone.
All in the name of obsessive TDS.
Why would Democratic staffers have access to the presidents calls with foreign leaders? It is his own staff that leaks things.
Biden just said he won't comply if subpoena'd. His answer sounds even worse than Trump's.
He basically said he doesn't want his statements used against him by the US Media outside of a trial, and the focus of three weeks of US Media scrutiny ... in an election year.
Gee ... interesting that the former Vice President -- who would be subponea'd for what he did as an Elected Executive --- wouldn't want comply either.
Can the Progressives in this country give even more ammo to Trump for 2020?
I cannot even begin to take issue with Trump, without also including Biden and Clinton. And both Biden and Clinton cannot keep their mouths shut enough so we can be objective on Trump.
Because they sound no different, and sometimes even worse, than Trump! For what they did when they were an Elective Executive and Cabinet Members, respectively (also impeachable offices).
He basically said he doesn't want his statements used against him by the US Media outside of a trial, and the focus of three weeks of US Media scrutiny ... in an election year.
Gee ... interesting that the former Vice President -- who would be subponea'd for what he did as an Elected Executive --- wouldn't want comply either.
Can the Progressives in this country give even more ammo to Trump for 2020?
I cannot even begin to take issue with Trump, without also including Biden and Clinton. And both Biden and Clinton cannot keep their mouths shut enough so we can be objective on Trump.
Because they sound no different, and sometimes even worse, than Trump! For what they did when they were an Elective Executive and Cabinet Members, respectively (also impeachable offices).
Eric Ciramaella, the fake whistleblower, was also know to leak other call information. Eric Ciramella while working with the NSA worked with current members of Schiff’s staff who at the time worked with the NSA.
2019 is the year I finally accepted the 'Deep State' theory, mainly because there's now lots of 'evidence.' It's not even a 'right wing conspiracy,' but it's an 'anti-establishment proof' now.
Republicans like McCain and others have been involved. The Steele dossier started as Republican funded research. We don't hear more about it because it implicates a lot of Republicans who like the DC swamp.
Even though it's heavily left-voting public servants, it still serves a lot of conservative interests outside of DC too.
I dont know if I should agree or disagree with your take here. Let's break it down into individual parts.
1. Should the president be entirely beholden to congress on all matters? If so, what makes our system different than a parliamentary one?
2. If the executive branch does rightfully have some level of independence from Congress, where should that line be drawn?
3. As the president is technically a servant of the people and congress is representative of the people, why, other than political expedience, do we have a 7 decade long period of presidents growing more and more powerful and leading public policy?
4. Why does congress rely on SCOTUS being essentially a tie-breaker vote and a supreme legislator?
Whoopdy frigging doo. Has it or will it make any difference if the senate doesn't remove him and Trump is reelected? Yeah, he's going to go down in history as just another president that was impeached but nobody cares. The whole process is basically a sham political statement and not an actual indictment that has any teeth to it.
I for one wish they actually would find a reason to remove him from office, that way it means something in the future. We have had some really, really bad people in the White House and not a single one was ever removed. Trump is no different than any if them in the fact that he can pretty much do whatever he wants and nothing will happen to him.
I repeatedly have to explain this to most of my British -- and even greater Commonwealth -- associates that aren't in the US. Too many don't realize the Executive and Legislative of the US aren't of the same party or any 'majority coalition.'
Oh, that's easy ...
Independent Counsels and the Federal Courts with impartial investigation and due process.
State courts, legislatures and federal legislations are hardly impartial.
Yep. This is the one thing I ask everyone.
I'm totally for gutting Trump's authority. But I don't see anyone offering that at all. Even the FISA Courts remain 'unchanged' in the aftermath of the recent disclosures.
So I, as a Libertarian, remain disturbed.
Indeed. But is that really a Trump question? HINT, HINT ...
I warned everyone the last few years of the Obama administration.
I repeatedly have to explain this to most of my British -- and even greater Commonwealth -- associates that aren't in the US. Too many don't realize the Executive and Legislative of the US aren't of the same party or any 'majority coalition.'
Oh, that's easy ...
Independent Counsels and the Federal Courts with impartial investigation and due process.
State courts, legislatures and federal legislations are hardly impartial.
Yep. This is the one thing I ask everyone.
I'm totally for gutting Trump's authority. But I don't see anyone offering that at all. Even the FISA Courts remain 'unchanged' in the aftermath of the recent disclosures.
So I, as a Libertarian, remain disturbed.
Indeed. But is that really a Trump question? HINT, HINT ...
I warned everyone the last few years of the Obama administration.
"Indeed. But is that really a Trump question? HINT, HINT ...
I warned everyone the last few years of the Obama administration."
This predates Obama by a long, long ways. We have had a grand total of 1 declared war since 1945, and yet our military has been engaged in battle for probably 60 or those years? The only time I can recall in my lifetime that congress has actually stood up and defended their authority was when Bush1 went into Kuwait, and even that was a formality. Even Gingrich basically ceded authority to Clinton and he was probably the only strong house leader since 1980. We went how many years without a budget, just deferring to the president on how to spend tax dollars. I guess McConnel actually did assert congressional authority by blocking Garland but that was just because they view SCOTUS as more powerful than themselves.
IMO, congress needs to assert themselves way more. Impeach justices and executive officials. Deny funding to the DOD if they continue to bomb countries that we aren't at war with. Makes demands on how homeland security funds are spent. I dont even care if it goes against my personal political beliefs, just take back the control you were intended to have in the first place.
I don't think this was any kind of take at all. You said " I dont like the whole blanket immunity thing but I can see why the courts have upheld it so many times." I was just pointing out that as far as I can tell there is a grand total of zero cases supporting the immunity argument, while there's several that go the other way. The Executive Branch has decades of claiming an absolute immunity (for close advisors - not the entire administration). In the limited court rulings we have, this has not held up. Executive privilege is far narrower and Trump hasn't even invoked since he's relying on the total immunity argument.
Except that Trump has taken an argument previous administrations have applied to close advisers, and is making it for the entire executive branch. If there's any doubt this is toothless, notice how the administration made zero effort to stop testimony from those who chose to comply with the subpoenas. If they had confidence in the argument, they could have sought an injunction. The mere fact that multiple administration employees ignored the WH directive with zero repercussions tell you how confident they are in this argument.
Congressional oversight is partisan and ugly. But an administration who thinks they are immune from congressional oversight altogether is on another planet. I mean, imagine for a second of Obama and invoked this with Benghazi and simply told the ENTIRE administration not to cooperate with the House. That's bananas and I'm shocked anyone is defending this.
On the flip side, the house didnt press the issue of executive officials refusing to testify. Either they didnt feel it was worth it to object to what is now a precedent, or they felt it already had a precedent. They had a really good opportunity to delineate executive privilege and I'm disappointed that they didn't.
What about Combetta's immunity agreement and lying to Congress and the FBI after that agreement was in-place, proven by the public InfoSec community to be doing exactly that?
That's why I've pretty much 'checked out' at this point. No one is held accountable any more.
I'm not sure that's on the House though. There were no specific and narrow claims of immunity or privilege to litigate here. The WH argued that the lowest level employees were off limits completely. If you pierced that broad shield, then you'd have to deal with the narrow and specific claims that would follow.
Regardless, imagine that SCOTUS fully rules in favor of the WH here - essentially allowing the WH to claim total immunity from congressional subpoenas. The House could STILL decide that wielding that power as done in this case is worthy of impeachment. In other words, the House decides the pain threshold regardless of where SCOTUS decides legality.
Remember, the courts don't like to settle these kinds of disputes. It's not an irrational position for the court to ultimately determine that the power of POTUS to Obstruct Congress is precisely the leash that Congress decides to give the Executive. This is actually a rational position to take in order to balance powers.
In other words, a proper balancing might be for the WH to provide the bare minimum level of cooperation it needs to avoid the obstruction article. The Court is not going to decide where that line is, even it makes technical rulings on what privileges apply to whom and when. From that perspective, Congress is setting precedent here that an administration wide claim of total immunity is Obstruction of Congress and impeachable, regardless of how courts might rule on narrow and specific claims of immunity/privilage.
I think that's a rational position for congress to take in effort to maintain it's powers. The rational position for the WH would have been to cooperate at the minimum level necessary to avoid the Obstruction article (unless you think your guilty on the primary charge, in which case you might decide obstructing is more rational).
What? This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
The White House has claimed an absolute immunity from participating with a congressional investigation. From top level advisers down to the mail room. This has exactly zero to do with an immunity from prosecution agreement that DOJ strikes up with someone.
Don't check out though. Humanity and self-government will never be anywhere close to perfect.
And yet ... it does.
And yet ... it does.
What did the Obama administration say about various officials (including cabinet)?
And then what the Obama DoJ prevented the FBI from doing, based on its interpretation.
I.e., the Obama administration's interpretations allowed Clinton's lawyers the time to work with the DoJ on an 'agreement.'
Especially as Congressional sub-committees where what caused this in the first place.
E.g., I hated the Benghazi hearings, hated the Republicans for them (even if the Obama administration lied to the public about the details). But then the servers came to light ... and ... the rest is history.
So yes, it's very much relevant. Especially when the Obama administration asserted they didn't have to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and let the DoJ control it.
It’s relevant because this whole exercise has been about public opinion. It’s the double standard. It’s Hillary getting to set the terms of her interview with the FBI during her investigation but then screaming that Trump doesn’t get to request a fair process. Then whining about the Senate because the Senate might play by the same rules as the House. The more the leftists go after Trump on flimsy evidence of something that most Americans aren’t even sure that they have an issue with, the more Trump supporters they’re creating and the more ardent the current Trump supporters become. Look at UCFBS, he by no means likes or agrees with Trump. But he is defending Trump at the moment because the ruling elites in Washington have exposed themselves in trying to remove him.And yet ... it does.
And yet ... it does.
What did the Obama administration say about various officials (including cabinet)?
And then what the Obama DoJ prevented the FBI from doing, based on its interpretation.
I.e., the Obama administration's interpretations allowed Clinton's lawyers the time to work with the DoJ on an 'agreement.'
Especially as Congressional sub-committees where what caused this in the first place.
E.g., I hated the Benghazi hearings, hated the Republicans for them (even if the Obama administration lied to the public about the details). But then the servers came to light ... and ... the rest is history.
So yes, it's very much relevant. Especially when the Obama administration asserted they didn't have to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and let the DoJ control it.
