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

[interchange]

My own opinion on the matter is that both Democrats and Republicans share some blame for not escalating the subpoena disagreement to the court system. Republicans should have appealed instead of denying access. Democrats should have brought suit after the denial. Chances are that after all is said and done Democrats would have gotten most, but not all, of what they wanted.

In what time frame? There is a real danger that allowing this to go through the courts would take so long as to prevent a case against Trump from being heard until after the election. That doesn't seem tenable when the allegation is bribery with intent to influence the election. In the real world, many cases are brought more urgently than ideal because the suspect poses clear and present danger.

If Trump had asserted any actual possible legal defense against the subpoenas, then things may be different. But otherwise there is, based on merits, a slam dunk case of removing Trump for obstruction. I feel confident in this because I've tried repeatedly in this thread to get someone supporting Trump in any way to actually state affirmatively reasoning that, based on facts and legal principle, any other conclusion should be drawn. No one has been willing to say that. Because it's an indefensible position unless you try to divert away from facts and legal principle. But maybe you can prove me wrong.

Therefore, obstruction of basic Congressional oversight through the very mechanism the framers explicitly provided to the House to provide oversight for suspected presidential corruption to me is the priority in removing him. And courts will add nothing except an order to undo it. And then Republicans can claim no foul because they did release documents and provide testimony just like they are claiming with no quid pro quo because when the scheme was found out aid got released. No. The legal case is transparent and obvious for anyone willing to look.

Unfortunately, enough people may not be willing to look. If you have some argument that it may be strategic to wait, I'd consider that as possible, but I really think we are in this partisan mess right now because people have been trying to make decisions based on strategy when the law dictates something clearer.

 

[HurleyBird]

In what time frame? There is a real danger that allowing this to go through the courts would take so long as to prevent a case against Trump from being heard until after the election. That doesn't seem tenable when the allegation is bribery with intent to influence the election. In the real world, many cases are brought more urgently than ideal because the suspect poses clear and present danger.

I'd hope that any suit would have expedited progress through the system. In any case, Trump can still be impeached after he is re-elected.

If Trump had asserted any actual possible legal defence against the subpoenas, then things may be different. But otherwise there is, based on merits, a slam dunk case of removing Trump for obstruction. I feel confident in this because I've tried repeatedly in this thread to get someone supporting Trump in any way to actually state affirmatively reasoning that, based on facts and legal principle, any other conclusion should be drawn. No one has been willing to say that. Because it's an indefensible position unless you try to divert away from facts and legal principle. But maybe you can prove me wrong.

I'd say that the "blanket executive privilege" shtick is pretty far fetched as you state, but you're also probably missing some nuance. An actual legal defence might include that as something of a hail Mary, but you'd also be looking at a much more detailed argument with fallbacks and conditionals. For example "We believe this is a case of general executive privilege, but even if the court finds otherwise we have a valid interest in keeping such and such secret." I think it's almost certain that all witnesses that Democrats want to call would be called, but there would also probably be certain constraints that would not otherwise exist had the White House immediately complied with the subpoena. The spectrum of allowable inquiry may be restricted. Certain witnesses may be allowed to be accompanied by counsel when they testify, and so on.

If you have some argument that it may be strategic to wait, I'd consider that as possible.

The strategic argument is simple. You aren't going to successfully remove Trump from office without that testimony.

Besides taking away a Republican talking point, if you wait on the courts and the resultant testimony is damning then that shifts the perception of independents and Republicans. The reason why Republicans are so easily able to resist impeachment today is because there are so many easily graspable defences to it, which mainly boil down to "You have hearsay and presumption, not proof."

Right now, there's a zero percent chance of the Senate impeaching Trump. Depending on how damning testimony from White House officials ends up being, those odds may go up a lot or not much at all. But if the goal is to actually remove Trump from office rather than just putting on some political theatre, then basic game theory dictates you need that testimony even if it takes some time to work its way through the courts.

 

[fskimospy]

And I'm saying I didn't compare it to Republican misconduct in any way (Although I will say that it's much more easy to be, and to be seen as, procedurally unfair when you're in control of the procedures). Only that it's obviously a shenanigan, it reinforces a major Republican talking point, and to the extent Republicans can use it to frame the narrative they can score points.

I totally disagree. Knowing Trump, I'm sure he did do it, or at least wanted to but botched the execution. The issue is that Sondland's "presumption" is not the smoking gun that's needed, and Zelansky's continued and adamant denials of any impropriety, like any alleged victim turning hostile to the prosecution, certainly wouldn't lend itself to a Jury verdict.

I mean the July 25th call all by itself is the smoking gun - Trump explicitly requested Ukraine investigate his political opponents. You literally don't need anything else.

All that aside, it's still a slam dunk.

1) If Zelensky felt pressured is irrelevant, bribery doesn't require the target to feel pressured. That aside, the contemporaneous written factual record shows the opposite.
2) Even though a quid-pro-quo is 100% unnecessary for this to be an impeachable offense the evidence that there was one is similarly overwhelming. Trump told Sondland to talk to Giuliani about what to do with Ukraine. Giuliani told Sondland to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. A-> B. I mean you do realize that when a

Every witness, without exception, had the exact same understanding that Trump had conditioned military aid and a White House visit on investigating the Bidens. Not a single factual witness has disputed these accounts - NOT ONE.
3) Every factual witness that should be able to exonerate Trump is being blocked from testifying, which is just more incriminating.

Just read Daniel Goldman's opening statement for all the fabulous details:

Read Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman's opening statement

Read his full prepared remarks.

www.politico.com

So we have large numbers of direct participants in the relevant events all testifying to an identical criminal scheme and the president incriminating himself in his own 'transcript' release. Like I said, this case would be open and shut. There are certainly lots of people in prison on the basis of far less convincing evidence.

And the Republican response to that would be along the lines of "Democrats are shielding testimony, especially from Schiff and the whistleblower whose identity is already known. We aren't going to play ball when you're abusing the process. Your power of subpoena isn't limitless. If you don't like it, take it up with the courts."

My own opinion on the matter is that both Democrats and Republicans share some blame for not escalating the subpoena disagreement to the court system. Republicans should have appealed instead of denying access. Democrats should have brought suit after the denial. Chances are that after all is said and done Democrats would have gotten most, but not all, of what they wanted.

Oh god more #bothsides. The reason why Democrats didn't issue additional subpoenas is because they are ALREADY litigating numerous subpoenas for people who refused to comply. Adding more does nothing. What it DOES do though is allow Trump to game the court system to delay any decision until after the 2020 election. That would mean that the Democrats would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs until after the election - the very election they are impeaching Trump for trying to rig! How stupid would they have to be to do that?

The main thing this whole saga has exposed is that our system of government is not able to effectively cope with an executive branch that has decided to no longer comply with the law. The courts take years to decide things and the executive capability to delay is nearly limitless.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd hope that any suit would have expedited progress through the system. In any case, Trump can still be impeached after he is re-elected.

I'm sure the Republicans would be perfectly happy with that. That would mean they got to cheat to win an election by criminally conspiring with foreign powers to rig it and the only price they pay is a Republican VP becomes president. This would be an invitation for every future president to cheat to the maximum of their ability, basically destroying the basis for our democracy.

Yeah, let's not do that.

I'd say that the "blanket executive privilege" shtick is pretty far fetched as you state, but you're also probably missing some nuance. An actual legal defence might include that as something of a hail Mary, but you'd also be looking at a much more detailed argument with fallbacks and conditionals. For example "We believe this is a case of general executive privilege, but even if the court finds otherwise we have a valid interest in keeping such and such secret." I think it's almost certain that all witnesses that Democrats want to call would be called, but there would also probably be certain constraints that would not otherwise exist had the White House immediately complied with the subpoena. The spectrum of allowable inquiry may be restricted. Certain witnesses may be allowed to be accompanied by counsel when they testify, and so on.

The strategic argument is simple. You aren't going to successfully remove Trump from office without that testimony.

Besides taking away a Republican talking point, if you wait on the courts and the resultant testimony is damning then that shifts the perception of independents and Republicans. The reason why Republicans are so easily able to resist impeachment today is because there are so many easily graspable defences to it, which mainly boil down to "You have hearsay and presumption, not proof."

Right now, there's a zero percent chance of the Senate impeaching Trump. Depending on how damning testimony from White House officials ends up being, those odds may go up a lot or not much at all. But if the goal is to actually remove Trump from office rather than just putting on some political theatre, then basic game theory dictates you need that testimony even if it takes some time to work its way through the courts.

We already literally have Trump on his own released statement committing the crime in question. The idea that Republicans aren't aware of this and if only an additional person or two testified to the same facts that Republicans would change their mind is breathtakingly naive. They know he did it, they don't care. That's why you see exactly zero defenses of Trump on the facts and why you see exactly zero Republicans calling for Trump to send these witnesses over to Congress so they could 'exonerate' him. As Popehat said it's amusing in an apocalyptic sort of way that people such as yourself keep saying 'well once we get THIS EVIDENCE the Republicans won't have a defense!' Of course they will, their defense will be identical to what it is today, and always has been - 'Fuck you'.

The goal here is not to remove Trump from office - that was never going to happen. The goal here is first to protect the Constitution as not impeaching him when the evidence is this overwhelming is basically just acquiescing to rampant criminal activity by the executive. Second it is to achieve maximum advantage in the 2020 election so that you can prevent further damage to the country and potentially prosecute Trump and his associates after he's out of office.

 

[dank69]

It seems odd to describe a field of candidates as weak when the current front runner is crushing Trump by somewhere around double digits in head to head polls.

Now polls this far out of course aren't that predictive but if a situation like that is 'dark' what does a bright situation look like?

The one where we launch all Republicans into the sun?

 

[Gabe323]

Pretty sure Burke would destroy all of these shit stains that are acting tough and saying they want to question him.

 

[interchange]

I'd hope that any suit would have expedited progress through the system. In any case, Trump can still be impeached after he is re-elected.

Expedited progress is still pretty slow, but I do find myself wondering what might actually be reasonable to expect for that only being in position to receive taking points. Impeachment after reelection is far different. Without getting into details, I hope we can agree on that basic premise. It's not a casual consolation if things cannot proceed due to abuse of the legal system.

I'd say that the "blanket executive privilege" shtick is pretty far fetched as you state, but you're also probably missing some nuance. An actual legal defence might include that as something of a hail Mary, but you'd also be looking at a much more detailed argument with fallbacks and conditionals. For example "We believe this is a case of general executive privilege, but even if the court finds otherwise we have a valid interest in keeping such and such secret." I think it's almost certain that all witnesses that Democrats want to call would be called, but there would also probably be certain constraints that would not otherwise exist had the White House immediately complied with the subpoena. The spectrum of allowable inquiry may be restricted. Certain witnesses may be allowed to be accompanied by counsel when they testify, and so on.

That is not nuance. There are separate things. There is no legal defense for his current defying of subpoenas, thus the case against obstruction is clear. The existence of possible defenses against future requests for evidence after his obstruction is ordered by court to stop is not important to the evaluation of his current egregious violation of the Constitution.

The strategic argument is simple. You aren't going to successfully remove Trump from office without that testimony.

Besides taking away a Republican talking point, if you wait on the courts and the resultant testimony is damning then that shifts the perception of independents and Republicans. The reason why Republicans are so easily able to resist impeachment today is because there are so many easily graspable defences to it, which mainly boil down to "You have hearsay and presumption, not proof."

Right now, there's a zero percent chance of the Senate impeaching Trump. Depending on how damning testimony from White House officials ends up being, those odds may go up a lot or not much at all. But if the goal is to actually remove Trump from office rather than just putting on some political theatre, then basic game theory dictates you need that testimony even if it takes some time to work its way through the courts.

I see things quite differently in these regards, but as @fskimospy indicates, the priority here is defending the Constitution so our institutions may retain meaning whenever Trump leaves office for whatever reason.

 

[hal2kilo]

Castor's lying testimony.

The Republican impeachment counsel just made a blatantly false claim.

www.motherjones.com

 

[Maxima1]

It seems odd to describe a field of candidates as weak when the current front runner is crushing Trump by somewhere around double digits in head to head polls.

Now polls this far out of course aren't that predictive but if a situation like that is 'dark' what does a bright situation look like?

So was Broom Hilda. A repeat of 2016 could easily happen with both the electoral college and cheating on the other side with some sort of bullshit "surprise" close to the election. Map looks very similar. There is no Fortress Obama. Doesn't help either that "Quid Pro Joe" is basically a repeat of buttery males.

2020 Electoral College Ratings

Updated: Nov. 7, 2019

 

[HurleyBird]

I mean the July 25th call all by itself is the smoking gun

Unless you selectively quote, it absolutely isn't. It's probably the least damning object, and only starts to paint a picture when lumped in with everything else.

If Zelensky felt pressured is irrelevant, bribery doesn't require the target to feel pressured. That aside, the contemporaneous written factual record shows the opposite.

It's not explicitly necessary, but it is incredibly relevant. If Zelensky had came out against Trump then the current evidence would likely be enough to get many Republicans to back impeachment. If Sondland had been able to testify that Trump told him to extort Zelesnky instead of that he "presumed" that to be the case (or if another official is able to make that claim in the future), same deal. And if you have both Zelensky and a first hand witness? Then you'd have a really good chance of getting the Senate to go along with impeachment.

The issue is that you don't have either one of those.

Every witness, without exception, had the exact same understanding

That's why I think he did it. You remember I said that, right? But no amount of presumptive evidence, regardless of how many officials share that presumption, is enough to get you anywhere coupled with Zelensky going against you. You need those White House officials to testify in the hopes one of them has the smoking gun -- first hand evidence.

Every factual witness that should be able to exonerate Trump is being blocked from testifying, which is just more incriminating.

I've covered this already.

Oh god more #bothsides. The reason why Democrats didn't issue additional subpoenas is because they are ALREADY litigating numerous subpoenas for people who refused to comply.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they aren't litigating the White House order barring staff from testifying, are they? That's what is needed.

I'm sure the Republicans would be perfectly happy with that. That would mean they got to cheat to win an election by criminally conspiring with foreign powers to rig it and the only price they pay is a Republican VP becomes president.

No rigging happened. An attempt to rig may have. So no, Republicans are not enjoying the results of their conspiracy in the upcoming election. And yes, if Trump won and got impeached a Republican VP would become President and the Democrats would almost certainly win the midterms and the subsequent presidential election. And no, that's not as good as removing him from office now. But the senate isn't going to do that now, so that point is moot.

The idea that Republicans aren't aware of this and if only an additional person or two testified to the same facts that Republicans would change their mind is breathtakingly naive. They know he did it, they don't care.

They have plausible deniability. No, a few more testimonies that say "I think Trump did it but I don't have proof" isn't going to change that. The point being that additional testimony may yield the required "Trump did do it, I do have proof."

The goal here is not to remove Trump from office - that was never going to happen. The goal here is first to protect the Constitution as not impeaching him when the evidence is this overwhelming is basically just acquiescing to rampant criminal activity by the executive.

That's still the case if you do it quickly or slowly or anywhere in between. The difference being that not waiting until all the pieces are in place gives ammunition to your opponents to say that your goal isn't to protect the constitution. Given the tribal nature of society, that actually does more harm than good.

Second it is to achieve maximum advantage in the 2020 election so that you can prevent further damage to the country and potentially prosecute Trump and his associates after he's out of office.

That's not going work so well when things get to the Senate and they abuse their majority to put on a political theatre about Schiff and Biden. They can do that because they have the room to do so. Room that Democrats granted them by not waiting.

Besides which, an active impeachment investigation is obviously going to be more damning in 2020 than having articles that quickly pas the house in a partisan-seeming manner. The best possible timing would be if the courts compelled White House staffers to testify right before the election. But any ongoing investigation would be preferable to not having one.

And the best way to prosecute Trump associates is to get them to testify under oath where they can perjure themselves.

 

[thilanliyan]

So was Broom Hilda. A repeat of 2016 could easily happen with both the electoral college and cheating on the other side with some sort of bullshit "surprise" close to the election. Map looks very similar. There is no Fortress Obama. Doesn't help either that "Quid Pro Joe" is basically a repeat of buttery males.

2020 Electoral College Ratings

Updated: Nov. 7, 2019

Yep, I don't believe for a second that a D president is a done deal, not by a long shot. If they haven't turned on him with all the evidence of corruption and shady dealings, nothing will turn em. Couple that with possible Russian election interference and it could be 4 more years of this cluster F.

 

[soundforbjt]

Yep, I don't believe for a second that a D president is a done deal, not by a long shot. If they haven't turned on him with all the evidence of corruption and shady dealings, nothing will turn em. Couple that with Russian election interference and it could be 4 more years of this cluster F.

ftfy

 

[fskimospy]

Unless you selectively quote, it absolutely isn't. It's probably the least damning object, and only starts to paint a picture when lumped in with everything else.

Nope, no need to selectively quote. It is by itself sufficient for impeachment and could in isolation sustain a federal bribery conviction. If you want to argue how an elected official asking a foreign government to investigate their political opponents doesn’t satisfy the statute by all means make that argument.

I would suggest reading it first.

It's not explicitly necessary, but it is incredibly relevant. If Zelensky had came out against Trump then the current evidence would likely be enough to get many Republicans to back impeachment.

Lol no they wouldn’t. How can you be this naive.

If Sondland had been able to testify that Trump told him to extort Zelesnky instead of that he "presumed" that to be the case (or if another official is able to make that claim in the future), same deal. And if you have both Zelensky and a first hand witness? Then you'd have a really good chance of getting the Senate to go along with impeachment.

See above.

The issue is that you don't have either one of those.

You should tell all those mobsters in prison that because the feds didn’t have them directly ordering crimes and instead had their advisers do it that they should be let out.

That's why I think he did it. You remember I said that, right? But no amount of presumptive evidence, regardless of how many officials share that presumption, is enough to get you anywhere coupled with Zelensky going against you. You need those White House officials to testify in the hopes one of them has the smoking gun -- first hand evidence.

As stated above we already have first hand evidence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they aren't litigating the White House order barring staff from testifying, are they? That's what is needed.

They are.

No rigging happened. An attempt to rig may have. So no, Republicans are not enjoying the results of their conspiracy in the upcoming election.

How naive would someone have to be to think Ukraine is the only country Trump has asked for help from. He’s still doing it now!

Oh and if you think he is remotely done abusing the office to win just wait until next summer.

And yes, if Trump won and got impeached a Republican VP would become President and the Democrats would almost certainly win the midterms and the subsequent presidential election. And yes, that's not as good as removing him from office now. But the senate isn't going to do that now, so that point is moot.

Every political party ever would gladly trade certainly winning the current election for maybe losing a future one. The good news for them is you can cheat in the next one too! After this I would simply assume my opponents were going to commit crimes to win so once you lose the presidency you can’t count on ever getting it back.

They have plausible deniability. No, a few more testimonies that say "I think Trump did it but I don't have proof" isn't going to change that. The point being that additional testimony may yield the required "Trump did do it, I do have proof."

Trump himself released evidence that he did it. His chief of staff confirmed it to a room full of reporters.

This is all a matter of public record.

That's still the case if you do it quickly or slowly or anywhere in between. The difference being that not waiting until all the pieces are in place gives ammunition to your opponents to say that your goal isn't to protect the constitution. Given the tribal nature of society, that actually does more harm than good.

So to be clear your political strategy when confronted with a president criminally rigging his own re-election and then obstructing your investigation into that is to attempt to litigate that obstruction for years in the courts he controls a majority of appointments in.

Good plan.

That's not going work so well when things get to the Senate and they abuse their majority to put on a political theatre about Schiff and Biden. They can do that because they have the room to do so. Room that Democrats granted them by not waiting.

Yes, clearly the Republicans who have spent the last few years spinning wild conspiracy theories about government conspiracies against Trump were totally about to conduct a sober evaluation of the facts but for the actions of the Democrats.

You can’t actually be serious.

Besides which, an active impeachment investigation is obviously going to be more damning in 2020 than having articles that quickly passed the house in a partisan seeming manner. The best possible timing would be if the courts compelled White House staffers to testify right before the election. But any ongoing investigation would be preferable to not having one.

Nothing stops the Democrats from having them testify in 2020, although I suspect at that point you will claim the Democrats appear partisan by doing it during the election.

And the best way to prosecute Trump associates is to get them to testify under oath where they can perjure themselves.

Sure, but nothing here changes that.

 

[HurleyBird]

That is not nuance. There are separate things. There is no legal defense for his current defying of subpoenas, thus the case against obstruction is clear. The existence of possible defenses against future requests for evidence after his obstruction is ordered by court to stop is not important to the evaluation of his current egregious violation of the Constitution.

Not separate. You seem to be envisioning them as such, eg. "existence of possible defenses against future requests for evidence after his obstruction is ordered by court to stop," as if Trump could stop a staffer from testifying after a court order by issuing another argument, but that isn't the way the system works. You can appeal a court ruling... but you can't begin again on the same item by saying that you have a new argument this time.

We can say that there's no legal argument for unlimited executive privilege. It's slightly hyperbolic but we can round up. That's different than saying that there's no legal defence for defying the subpoenas, of which there are probably many on a case-by-case basis. The extent to which one will view Trump's actions as unlawful obstruction will depend on how you interpret the executive privilege argument as something an earnest monolithic cath-call versus the Hail Mary portion of what would otherwise be a more robust defence if taken to court.

 

[hal2kilo]

Recess for votes coming up. Sheez, another looong day.

 

[fskimospy]

To make all this simpler maybe just pretend the July 25th call is between a city mayor and his chief of police.

1) The chief of police tells the mayor he needs $500k for new squad cars.

2) The mayor responds ‘I need a favor, launch an investigation into my opponent in next year’s election.’

If the FBI caught that on tape does anyone think for a minute that mayor is not in deep, deep shit?

 

[HurleyBird]

They are.

The rest of our conversation isn't going to go anywhere, but since this is a factual question can you provide a source for that? I have an Atlantic article that states they aren't.

The House Is Making This Fight Too Easy for Trump

Democrats should try harder to compel testimony from the president’s underlings.

www.theatlantic.com

Subpoenas for documents also remain unanswered and unenforced. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Perry, and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani have all rebuffed requests. Meanwhile, none of these witnesses has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee—nor has former National Security Adviser John Bolton—despite their deep knowledge of the president’s role in the Ukraine affair.

There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas while at the same time maintaining the brisk pace of the impeachment inquiry thus far. Courts can move quickly—but only if asked.

 

[interchange]

Not separate. You seem to be envisioning them as such, eg. "existence of possible defenses against future requests for evidence after his obstruction is ordered by court to stop," as if Trump could stop a staffer from testifying after a court order by issuing another argument, but that isn't the way the system works. You can appeal a court ruling... but you can't begin again on the same item by saying that you have a new argument this time.

We can say that there's no legal argument for unlimited executive privilege. It's slightly hyperbolic but we can round up. That's different than saying that there's no legal defence for defying the subpoenas, of which there are probably many on a case-by-case basis. The extent to which one will view Trump's actions as unlawful obstruction will depend on how you interpret the executive privilege argument as something an earnest monolithic cath-call versus the Hail Mary portion of what would otherwise be a more robust defence if taken to court.

Instead of debating this ad nauseum, I'll simply ask you how judge Kentaji Brown Jackson handled Trump's absolute immunity claim with regard to Don McGahn defying subpoena at his direction.

 

[fskimospy]

The rest of our conversation isn't going to go anywhere, but since this is a factual question can you provide a source for that? I have an Atlantic article that states they aren't.

The House Is Making This Fight Too Easy for Trump

Democrats should try harder to compel testimony from the president’s underlings.

www.theatlantic.com

Sure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-judge-rules/2019/11/25/6de26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

As for the rest of it not going anywhere that’s something I can’t help you with. Trump himself released a recap of a call with him committing a crime on it and you still think that’s not good enough and if only we got a little more testimony that Republicans would suddenly discover the better angels of their nature.

They don’t need more evidence because no amount of evidence matters to them. For example Chris Christie said immediately before the recap was released that Trump would only be in trouble if he said ‘hey do me a favor and investigate Biden’. When it turned out he said exactly that did Christie change his mind? Of course not.

Christie dismisses notion that Trump leaned on Ukraine leader. ‘That’s the way he talks.’

The former New Jersey governor and Donald Trump ally told reporters there was nothing nefarious happening when Trump told the president of Ukraine he “would like (him) to do us a favor."

www.nj.com

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love the attempt to discuss executive privilege as an abstraction rather than Trump's use of it, which is to obscure the truth. The evidence at hand is overwhelming, regardless of claims to the contrary. Trump tried to bribe Zelensky into helping validate the Crooked Bidens conspiracy theory. Call Giuliani & Barr- they'll explain it in detail. And the server... they say Ukraine has it.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey guys the good news is that when confronted with facts Republicans will drop the partisan lying and actually do their jobs.

For example Republicans spent years claiming there was an FBI conspiracy against Trump but today the IG reported emphatically that there was not and the investigation was proper. Naturally Republicans took this refutation of their conspiracy theories for the factual decision it was and adjusted their rhetoric accordingly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204107333468672001

Oh.

Well I’m sure the Democrats did something to make him say that.

 

[HurleyBird]

Sure.

Yup, they're going after a guy who was a former staff member. Are they doing that for current White House staff?

 

[hal2kilo]

Hey guys the good news is that when confronted with facts Republicans will drop the partisan lying and actually do their jobs.

For example Republicans spent years claiming there was an FBI conspiracy against Trump but today the IG reported emphatically that there was not and the investigation was proper. Naturally Republicans took this refutation of their conspiracy theories for the factual decision it was and adjusted their rhetoric accordingly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1204107333468672001

Oh.

Well I’m sure the Democrats did something to make him say that.

Absolutely nothing will move the Republicans. Trump go on, you know you want to do it. Just shoot somebody on 5th avenue, and get it over with. Nothins going to happen, just ask the Republicans.

 

[jackstar7]

Mr. Neguse is my hero for the day. Getting Castor to admit several points was enjoyable to watch.

 

[fskimospy]

Yup, they're going after a guy who was a former staff member. Are they doing that for current White House staff?

If you read the decision there is no distinction made between former and current staff as the distinction wouldn’t be meaningful anyway. The only question is if an individual can be forced to testify about their conduct advising the president in an official capacity.