Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[zinfamous]

Need to skip to the last 1/3rd but wow

...or also check out 2:30 and the eyes that Pence beams in on Melania....I mean, does Mother approve? I doubt it.

 

[zinfamous]

You can't make this stuff up...

but yeah...so dude is fucked in the poopshoot to be sure.

...and let no one forget, that this was the head of the intel committee personally running directly to Trump to illegally give him all of the info that the committee was collecting, up until the end of 2018. This little rat-fucking semen stain.

I wonder if Nunes is going to be eating Polonium soon? Because he's seriously a top target.

 

[zinfamous]

"I want to discuss this with my constituents and colleagues before I make a final judgment on this," Schiff said. "
Sounds like Schiff wants to do some polling of his own over the long weekend, since the show hasn't really played too well outside of the already decided. He hasn't been able to move the needle:

CNN Poll: No change in views on impeachment after public hearings | CNN Politics

After five days of public hearings in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, public opinion over whether the President ought to be impeached and removed from office remains exactly the same as it was in October, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

us.cnn.com

It's trench warfare, and these Schiff-show hearings are like artillery shells flying overhead. Maybe a few people get blown up, but nothing really changes.
Is this thing even gonna go to a vote? I sure hope so. What a debacle if not.

wat?

Did you even read the news today, or no?

 

[crashtech]

wat?

Did you even read the news today, or no?

I do tend to have a backlog, as most of the time I am busy being productive instead of obsessing over political minutiae. I'd noticed that Schiff's comments received absolutely no play here, in fact he'd not been mentioned by name in this thread since last Thursday. He is a central player in this drama, so I thought the story was relevant. Perhaps there are more recent Schiff quotes that fit the prescribed narrative?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Folks might have a look at Maddow's show last night. Turns out that there are documents coming out from the OMB in spite of Trump's blockades and that the budget committee has emails that demonstrate that Trump ordered the funds withheld and at least two people resigned because it was against the law. It turns out that once the funds were approved by Congress they need to be disbursed by the President. There is a process where in certain instances a President can ask Congress to approve a stay, however there must be a reason and Congress has a very real say.

Trump had Duffy, a political appointee, take over when officials at the OMB wouldn't break the law without taking it to lawyers first to get an opinion. This was in June the day after Trump found out that the DOD was releasing part of the funds. Oh, there are emails that were presented in evidence, no "hearsay".

Last bit was about Rudy and the investigation. If there's a grand jury it can obtain documents on him and if the DOJ (Barr) refuses to comply then in NY this can go to court in 24 hours, and an appeal will be settled in a week or less. Not a matter of months at all.

TLDR, Trump and Rudy have new woes with documents of intent to commit crimes, and claims of "I don't know what Rudy was doing" have been materially disproven.

 

[ivwshane]

Folks might have a look at Maddow's show last night. Turns out that there are documents coming out from the OMB in spite of Trump's blockades and that the budget committee has emails that demonstrate that Trump ordered the funds withheld and at least two people resigned because it was against the law. It turns out that once the funds were approved by Congress they need to be disbursed by the President. There is a process where in certain instances a President can ask Congress to approve a stay, however there must be a reason and Congress has a very real say.

Trump had Duffy, a political appointee, take over when officials at the OMB wouldn't break the law without taking it to lawyers first to get an opinion. This was in June the day after Trump found out that the DOD was releasing part of the funds. Oh, there are emails that were presented in evidence, no "hearsay".

Last bit was about Rudy and the investigation. If there's a grand jury it can obtain documents on him and if the DOJ (Barr) refuses to comply then in NY this can go to court in 24 hours, and an appeal will be settled in a week or less. Not a matter of months at all.

TLDR, Trump and Rudy have new woes with documents of intent to commit crimes, and claims of "I don't know what Rudy was doing" have been materially disproven.

If what trump was willing to release was bad, can you imagine just how bad things really are.

 

[UNCjigga]

If what trump was willing to release was bad, can you imagine just how bad things really are.

No evidence that Trump approved the release...OMB was under orders from the White House not to release documents to Schiff. But 2 people resigned, I’m sure a few good eggs are left, and somehow Congress got the documents they asked for without WH approval.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If what trump was willing to release was bad, can you imagine just how bad things really are.

Since Rudy will be facing a grand jury there will be documents produced in two weeks or less and under the precedent set by the Judiciary, that testimony can properly be released to an impeachment committee or at least that part which has relevance.

That somewhat explains why Trump said "see Rudy" and then told O'Reilly that Rudy was acting on his own. If the truth comes out, all of it, then a fair portion of Congress along with others may come down along with Trump and his bad actors.

 

[Indus]

Since Rudy will be facing a grand jury there will be documents produced in two weeks or less and under the precedent set by the Judiciary, that testimony can properly be released to an impeachment committee or at least that part which has relevance.

That somewhat explains why Trump said "see Rudy" and then told O'Reilly that Rudy was acting on his own. If the truth comes out, all of it, then a fair portion of Congress along with others may come down along with Trump and his bad actors.

You're more optimistic than me.Everytime he goes further and further when no one challenges him.. and you think someone will challenge him but they tow the partisan line.

So I think the so what defense will continue well and past firing squad phase of Trump's fascism.. yes he used firing squads to kill never Trumpers but they're never Trumpers so what?

And lots might think I'm exaggerating but just look past is prologue. Remember Manifest Destiny? This is it all over again.. who cares about who gets hurt.. it's god's will that Trump do this for the better of America.

 

[interchange]

Folks might have a look at Maddow's show last night. Turns out that there are documents coming out from the OMB in spite of Trump's blockades and that the budget committee has emails that demonstrate that Trump ordered the funds withheld and at least two people resigned because it was against the law. It turns out that once the funds were approved by Congress they need to be disbursed by the President. There is a process where in certain instances a President can ask Congress to approve a stay, however there must be a reason and Congress has a very real say.

Trump had Duffy, a political appointee, take over when officials at the OMB wouldn't break the law without taking it to lawyers first to get an opinion. This was in June the day after Trump found out that the DOD was releasing part of the funds. Oh, there are emails that were presented in evidence, no "hearsay".

Last bit was about Rudy and the investigation. If there's a grand jury it can obtain documents on him and if the DOJ (Barr) refuses to comply then in NY this can go to court in 24 hours, and an appeal will be settled in a week or less. Not a matter of months at all.

TLDR, Trump and Rudy have new woes with documents of intent to commit crimes, and claims of "I don't know what Rudy was doing" have been materially disproven.

If this were a trial on facts, then Trump would have no leg to stand on, if nothing more than overt obstruction. But it is far too political. Republicans want it to be political. To be a kind of war that's won or lost on public opinion or votes. Far too many Democrats are falling in line with that and are seeing the purpose of their proceedings as a tool to try and get a better outcome on the election. Is that as bad as Trump? Hell no, but it's still wrong. Impeachment is about pursuing whether or not evidence supports bringing a president to trial for removal from office based on criminal behavior. That is all anyone should talk about and think about and the obvious answer is yes based on the facts.

 

[fskimospy]

If this were a trial on facts, then Trump would have no leg to stand on, if nothing more than overt obstruction. But it is far too political. Republicans want it to be political. To be a kind of war that's won or lost on public opinion or votes. Far too many Democrats are falling in line with that and are seeing the purpose of their proceedings as a tool to try and get a better outcome on the election. Is that as bad as Trump? Hell no, but it's still wrong. Impeachment is about pursuing whether or not evidence supports bringing a president to trial for removal from office based on criminal behavior. That is all anyone should talk about and think about and the obvious answer is yes based on the facts.

While I agree in a better world that’s all people would focus on what do you do when the other team decides the rules don’t matter anymore?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

While I agree in a better world that’s all people would focus on what do you do when the other team decides the rules don’t matter anymore?

Trump will defy Congress as he wishes, but there is no cover for Rudy if a grand jury subpoena is issued. He's going to have to march down to NY and shoot them.

What the State Department will need to do in short order is to defy a final ruling against them because no one screws with the GJ process. Every single individual who refuses to cooperate will be taken into custody if it comes to it. Trump may cover his own ass, but not anyone else and to pardon to subvert Article I section 2 presents a proper crisis involving the Constitution. If this goes to the SCOTUS then even with this court it's hard to see how the Founders would have built in a "moot" switch for impeachment intentionally to evade the process of impeachment.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If this were a trial on facts, then Trump would have no leg to stand on, if nothing more than overt obstruction. But it is far too political. Republicans want it to be political. To be a kind of war that's won or lost on public opinion or votes. Far too many Democrats are falling in line with that and are seeing the purpose of their proceedings as a tool to try and get a better outcome on the election. Is that as bad as Trump? Hell no, but it's still wrong. Impeachment is about pursuing whether or not evidence supports bringing a president to trial for removal from office based on criminal behavior. That is all anyone should talk about and think about and the obvious answer is yes based on the facts.

Trump has officially thrown Rudy under the bus as he always does. As more and more people become implicated in crimes the more they are likely to cooperate. Rudy may face a lifetime in prison and see my perspective on pardon above. I think no one should count on being saved by Trump, and in the case of Rudy, there is likely a basis for NY to say that they have a jurisdictional claim for a number of reasons.

Trump may not be removed but he's damned a lot of others who might not appreciate the kind of loyalty Trump demonstrates.

 

[fskimospy]

Trump will defy Congress as he wishes, but there is no cover for Rudy if a grand jury subpoena is issued. He's going to have to march down to NY and shoot them.

What the State Department will need to do in short order is to defy a final ruling against them because no one screws with the GJ process. Every single individual who refuses to cooperate will be taken into custody if it comes to it. Trump may cover his own ass, but not anyone else and to pardon to subvert Article I section 2 presents a proper crisis involving the Constitution. If this goes to the SCOTUS then even with this court it's hard to see how the Founders would have built in a "moot" switch for impeachment intentionally to evade the process of impeachment.

He will do the same thing as with the other grand jury information. Sue and say that Rudy’s GJ testimony can’t be accessed by Congress.

Even if we assume Rudy’s testimony would be governed by the same ruling as GJ testimony for Mueller (and there’s certainly no guarantee of that) SCOTUS may not rule on it until the middle of next year. If Rudy’s case is determined to be its own thing then we are probably talking 2021 or 2022.

The only hope we have in terms of the courts is that SCOTUS delivers a special, out of term ruling that is INCREDIBLY broad and functionally dismisses all of Trump’s legal arguments. I am not at very hopeful that will happen. I’m also not entirely sure Trump would just not comply anyway and then rely on Barr to refuse to enforce any court orders against him, saying the Supreme Court was infringing on his constitutional powers.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Rudy Colludi says he's got insurance if Trump throws him under the bus.

Bill O’Reilly?? He has a job?

Boy, there sure are lots of coffee boys in this administration.

Rudy Guiliani. For months now the mere mention of his name has made political pundits immediately smile and/or shake their heads. He's a punch line.
After making a jackass of himself on TV countless times, while at the same time being implicated in everything, they put him in a box, kept him off TV for a while. And then he claims that his insurance is a big file on the Bidens which he threatens to release if Trump gets any ideas. The president's personal attorney...WTF!

Rudy is just an echo chamber for random thoughts that come out of his mouth with no filter, that may pertain to him or others, based on transient anxiety states he experiences.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He will do the same thing as with the other grand jury information. Sue and say that Rudy’s GJ testimony can’t be accessed by Congress.

There's no basis for the SCOTUS or any court to hear the case as this is settled precedent.

Some may remember a court case "McKeever vs. Barr" regarding Rule 6e, where access go grand jury records was limited, however that wasn't all there was to it.

A few months ago, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took the unusual step of signalling its position on whether impeachment proceedings would count as “judicial proceedings” under Rule 6(e). On April 5, the Court ruled, in McKeever v. Barr, that judges lack a more generalized “inherent authority” to release grand jury information. The McKeever court provided an unusually lengthy footnote, however, reminding Congress of another route to obtaining such information: its own Article I powers as a judicial or quasi-judicial body via impeachment. The court discussed an important Watergate-era precedent also decided by the DC Court of Appeals—Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C. 1974)—which permitted the transmission of a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon. The McKeever court read Haldeman as firmly “fitting within the Rule 6(e) exception for ’judicial proceedings.’”

So for ordinary purposes, the GJ is inaccessible, but in impeachment? The court says that the House has access.

Consequently, this will be fast-tracked and in a matter of weeks, the House has the info.

This is one thing, perhaps the only one, that will cause Mitch to toss Trump under the bus. Can you imagine the Republican leadership willfully making an enemy of the SCOTUS? They'll be ass raped.

 

[fskimospy]

There's no basis for the SCOTUS or any court to hear the case as this is settled precedent.

Some may remember a court case "McKeever vs. Barr" regarding Rule 6e, where access go grand jury records was limited, however that wasn't all there was to it.

A few months ago, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took the unusual step of signalling its position on whether impeachment proceedings would count as “judicial proceedings” under Rule 6(e). On April 5, the Court ruled, in McKeever v. Barr, that judges lack a more generalized “inherent authority” to release grand jury information. The McKeever court provided an unusually lengthy footnote, however, reminding Congress of another route to obtaining such information: its own Article I powers as a judicial or quasi-judicial body via impeachment. The court discussed an important Watergate-era precedent also decided by the DC Court of Appeals—Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C. 1974)—which permitted the transmission of a grand jury report to the House Judiciary Committee in the course of its impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon. The McKeever court read Haldeman as firmly “fitting within the Rule 6(e) exception for ’judicial proceedings.’”

So for ordinary purposes, the GJ is inaccessible, but in impeachment? The court says that the House has access.

Consequently, this will be fast-tracked and in a matter of weeks, the House has the info.

This is one thing, perhaps the only one, that will cause Mitch to toss Trump under the bus. Can you imagine the Republican leadership willfully making an enemy of the SCOTUS? They'll be ass raped.

If that's the case why is it that the House filed its lawsuit to get Mueller grand jury materials in July and still don't have them? It could easily be sometime next July before they get access, assuming SCOTUS rules in their favor. And that's with the courts deliberately trying to expedite things!

 

[interchange]

While I agree in a better world that’s all people would focus on what do you do when the other team decides the rules don’t matter anymore?

Play by the rules yourself. Right now someone has to advocate more clearly for that or it means both sides are promoting division. Not equally, but it doesn't matter who's driving the bigger wedge. If the American system fails, then either we ride it out long enough to be able to make changes to bolster it or the other option is revolution.

 

[VRAMdemon]

It's obvious Trump, the Republicans and their supporters think that a president should never be impeached, no matter what he does. They support the doctrine of the Unitary Executive, which is just fancy Federalist Society Speak for "autocratic ruler of our choice." Many of Trump's supporters live in a Fox "News" alternate "reality," which isn't reality at all -- but it allows them to believe that the impeachment efforts are based on partisanship and not the actual established facts.

A fundamental mistake made in 2016 is that the majority of the population was not really paying attention to the sharp focus on the goals of a segment of the citizenry as approached starting with Newt Gingrich, the Federalist Society, etc. These people are on a mission, willing to use scorched earth tactics.

We did not see that they would be willing to subvert our entire system of government and happily use Russian assistance to tear apart our traditions and institutions. This includes a heretofore unknown willingness to support a person obviously unqualified for the job and to ignore/commit any crime to ensure he keeps his useful idiot status. This is their moment. They are going to fight like hell.

 

[fskimospy]

Play by the rules yourself. Right now someone has to advocate more clearly for that or it means both sides are promoting division. Not equally, but it doesn't matter who's driving the bigger wedge. If the American system fails, then either we ride it out long enough to be able to make changes to bolster it or the other option is revolution.

I strongly disagree. If the other side throws the rules out the window the correct response is to provide them incentives to play by the rules in the future, which means disregarding the rules yourself.

That's why I'm such a big advocate of packing the courts and things like that. If they steal a SCOTUS seat you add two or three times the number they stole and then go back to them and say 'let's make a deal so that this sort of shenanigans won't happen in the future'. If the Democrats just continue to play by the rules the Republicans will (correctly) determine they pay no price for violating them.

 

[fskimospy]

It's obvious Trump, the Republicans and their supporters think that a president should never be impeached, no matter what he does. They support the doctrine of the Unitary Executive, which is just fancy Federalist Society Speak for "autocratic ruler of our choice." Many of Trump's supporters live in a Fox "News" alternate "reality," which isn't reality at all -- but it allows them to believe that the impeachment efforts are based on partisanship and not the actual established facts.

A fundamental mistake made in 2016 is that the majority of the population was not really paying attention to the sharp focus on the goals of a segment of the citizenry as approached starting with Newt Gingrich, the Federalist Society, etc. These people are on a mission, willing to use scorched earth tactics.

We did not see that they would be willing to subvert our entire system of government and happily use Russian assistance to tear apart our traditions and institutions. This includes a heretofore unknown willingness to support a person obviously unqualified for the job and to ignore/commit any crime to ensure he keeps his useful idiot status. This is their moment. They are going to fight like hell.

The Barr speech about how the people who wrote the Constitution were truly afraid of an excessively powerful legislature and not of unchecked executive power so the president should basically be a king was really frightening. Not just because it was incredibly extreme, but also because someone in that position of power has apparently never cracked open a history book.

Also it's odd that Barr wasn't out there making these claims while Obama was in the White House. Maybe he was just really busy. Surely it's not that his views on executive power wax and wane with what party controls it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If that's the case why is it that the House filed its lawsuit to get Mueller grand jury materials in July and still don't have them? It could easily be sometime next July before they get access, assuming SCOTUS rules in their favor. And that's with the courts deliberately trying to expedite things!

That's because the Mueller investigation wasn't a Congressional one and not part of an impeachment inquiry. This is entirely different and the court told Congress under what conditions 6e applies and does not. It explicitly gave a case like this impeachment which would permit what we're talking about.

 

[VRAMdemon]

With the more “conservative” judges on the Supreme Court. I believe it’s understood that they have a deeply entrenched view of the “Unitary Executive” who has unbridled power and authority over most everything.

I keep wondering what tune they will sing when a Democrat is President.

The ignoring of all the impeachable crimes by this President sets a precedent for both sides going forward. No more oversight means no more oversight in either direction. Will they all of a sudden going to have an epiphany about executive authority and oversight once a Democrat is elected president?

Most of the people currently being nominated to courts around the country are not qualified, neutral jurists. They're hardline conservative partisans, sometimes with no qualifications other than "sucked up to Trump".

this article... Not encouraging.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The ignoring of all the impeachable crimes by this President sets a precedent for both sides going forward. No more oversight means no more oversight in either direction. Will they all of a sudden going to have an epiphany about executive authority and oversight once a Democrat is elected president?

Of course they will, they'll revert to the party of moral authority and executive oversight the second a Democratic president wins an election. Thankfully they'll remain the party of inconsistency and double-talk, so at least they're predictable.

 

[fskimospy]

That's because the Mueller investigation wasn't a Congressional one and not part of an impeachment inquiry. This is entirely different and the court told Congress under what conditions 6e applies and does not. It explicitly gave a case like this impeachment which would permit what we're talking about.

But the request was from Congress and part of an impeachment inquiry.